Conquer Club

Concise description:
Add in an extra line or two to the community guidelines. At the moment they are missing a rather key bit of information...


Specifics:
I know this is something of an obsession of mine, but I have become increasingly convinced that there is an unwritten rule operating within CC. While the guidelines tell us not to be 'intentionally annoying' (yet many are, all the time and are thankfully unpunished...'cause where would the fun be without a bit of mild joshing?), or 'flame' (yet again, people flame all the time without being punished either...and again I don't disapprove of that)...the fact is, is that there is an unwritten rule that really needs to become written: 'Don't, under any circumstances, annoy, flame, piss off, make fun of, or cast aspersions upon an admin or moderator.' There is a prime example of this unwritten rule in operation in this thread:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=94301&start=45

In it, we see Neoteny be reported for 'flaming' (very mildy) jpcloet on his own ratings page. jpcloet (a moderator) reports Neoteny. Neoteny admits he did it, offers to remove the comments and I think we all assumed a warning would suffice. How little do we credit Team CC...

Neoteny gets banned, with the rather creative reason being that Neoteny's account had been abused by a babysitter...Neoteny was banned indefintely. I made a bit of a fuss, and the punishment was changed to 'frozen'. This is still interesting though, because Neoteny admitted that HE WROTE THE COMMENTS HIMSELF, thus leaving us all to wonder what exactly the babysitter did do...play some games? Maybe we'll never know.

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?

How will this improve the site?

At the moment, the Community Guidelines do not specifically state that Team CC Members should be treated differently to other members. I believe that this is causing members to be banned due to being unaware of the rules as they actually are. If Neotney had written those comments about a member other than one from Team CC and that member complained, then the response would merely have been to foe Neoteny and let it go...maybe ask him to remove the comments if they were racist (which they weren't).

Yet Neoteny is, as far as we know, gone. Skittles! could have written what he did about any member not part of Team CC and again, I am 100% sure, not been banned, even if the member complained...and I mean really, who would? It wasn't exactly a bone crunching flame now was it? I mean even I could do better than that and I flame like a 10 year old girl.

It seems that our admins believe in the benefits of transparency, so I would think they would welcome this revision to the community guidelines. Because of this lack of openness, two members have been banned. It is rather like dealing with a policeman or a normal member of the public. If I tell joe blogs to 'go f*ck himself', nothing will happen to me. However, if I tell Mr. Plod to do the same...well that might well be a different situation. Of course we all know that, so we tend to treat policemen differently to other people...with more care you might say. Team CC obviously consider themselves to be in the same position as Mr. Plod, so I respectfully suggest that they make their position in the community guidelines clear. This change would result in less members being banned for assuming Team CC Members could be treated in the same way as other members. They can't, and forum posters should be made aware of this.

My understanding is that moderators are like anyone else. Hopefully people treat everyone with respect and dignity. I've seen mods told that they should act like a formal part of the site, yet are treated worse (and targeted) than most by a few people.

I have no idea what the admins think when they do what they do, although you should note that several people called Skittles demise right after he posted. I don't know why it wasn't noted as frozen from the beginning, maybe to whomever dealt with the situation, they see it as the same thing. Either way, the account was not playing games.

Keep in mind that Skittles just (like within the last week or so) came of a flaming holiday so that likely didn't help either. Nothing like flaming right after being punished previously for doing so. Some posters never learn. Hopefully the 6 month rule comes into play soon.

jpcloet wrote:although you should note that several people called Skittles demise right after he posted.

True. Although, not because we thought he deserved it, but rather because we know what happens when anyone steps out of line in regards to the royal jp.

Timminz wrote:

jpcloet wrote:although you should note that several people called Skittles demise right after he posted.

True. Although, not because we thought he deserved it, but rather because we know what happens when anyone steps out of line in regards to the royal jp.

Let's test it out! (Don't worry fight fans... I'm only up to 24 hours so I can take the hit of Andy just having to prove my proposition is incorrect)

Timminz! It is my understanding that you should grow the f*ck up.

How do you feel Timminz? Can you cope with the abuse? Do you need a little lie down?

Jpcloet: the point is that Skittles' flame was minor at worst and (I think importantly) a single post. He didn't exactly start a flamewar now did he? If he had directed that comment at another member it would have been ignored. We all know this (even with the previous record). He was banned because he directed it at you, I believe Neoteny was banned (not frozen, banned) because he flamed you a bit on his ratings page.

The point of this thread is that forum users should be made explicity aware of the double standards at work here.

Point of interest: Did you actually complain about skittles' post, or was this decision taken without your input?

1. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to inherently ask for a holiday. The last person that asked for one, got one to my recollection.

2. You admit above that Skittle's post was a flame. I'm sure the mod who handled that report would have loved to give a warning, but as per the policy and the recent holiday, they took it to the next step.

I don't report that many posts, I think I reported that one, but someone may have beaten me to it. The last few reports I remember submitting were Tournament threads that needed to be moved.

jpcloet wrote:2. You admit above that Skittle's post was a flame. I'm sure the mod who handled that report would have loved to give a warning, but as per the policy and the recent holiday, they took it to the next step.

ah yes... the escallating scale which we all agreed to in the Bigotry Guidelines thread, and then it somehow became the standard for all infractions... as timminz said, the moment he posted that to you, we all knew he was gone. no offense, jp, you know i like you. however, that comment is not a bannable offense. that "flame" is used on a daily basis, and this is the first time i have seen someone banned over it... i mean, "suck it up, cupcake" is pretty much a flame, but acceptable... anyway, i am growing weary of the forums. the mods and admins are destroying the small forum community, and they don't even realize it, because they believe THEY are the community. however, with the recent changes around here, intended to make it all better, and how little of a response they received, it is clear how out of touch with "us", "they" are... i am not speaking of all mods, i speak with you and a few others regularly. i am speaking of the regime and the putrid atmosphere they have cast over the forums... and yes, i used the word regime intentionally... this ban was absolute garbage, just like many of the recent bans. absolute garbage.-0

Mr Changsha wrote:Timminz! It is my understanding that you should grow the f*ck up.

How do you feel Timminz? Can you cope with the abuse? Do you need a little lie down?

I think I've found a flaw in your plan. If you don't get a ban for this flame, it will prove your point correct. To have your point proven correct will highlight the exact inconsistencies you're referencing, which as we all know, is a bannable offense.

Mr Changsha wrote:Concise description:
Add in an extra line or two to the community guidelines. At the moment they are missing a rather key bit of information...

Specifics:
I know this is something of an obsession of mine, but I have become increasingly convinced that there is an unwritten rule operating within CC. While the guidelines tell us not to be 'intentionally annoying' (yet many are, all the time and are thankfully unpunished...'cause where would the fun be without a bit of mild joshing?), or 'flame' (yet again, people flame all the time without being punished either...and again I don't disapprove of that)...the fact is, is that there is an unwritten rule that really needs to become written:[b] 'Don't, under any circumstances, annoy, flame, piss off, make fun of, or cast aspersions upon an admin or moderator.

I don't really believe that applies. I've been publicly and loudly critical of Andy over several instances in the last...oh...six months or so, as well as with how things run on ConquerClub. I've gotten a vacation, but that vacation was rather earned (I agreed with it). Why haven't I been more harshly punished than I have, given those criticisms?

I agree with this suggestion 100%.

Once everyone is made aware that talking out of turn to a member of Team CC will be punished more severely than if said infraction was committed against an ordinary member, then there will be less members crying foul, because we'll have been informed of this unwritten commandment.

Thou shall not disparage thy Mod or Admin.

Woodruff wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:Concise description:
Add in an extra line or two to the community guidelines. At the moment they are missing a rather key bit of information...

Specifics:
I know this is something of an obsession of mine, but I have become increasingly convinced that there is an unwritten rule operating within CC. While the guidelines tell us not to be 'intentionally annoying' (yet many are, all the time and are thankfully unpunished...'cause where would the fun be without a bit of mild joshing?), or 'flame' (yet again, people flame all the time without being punished either...and again I don't disapprove of that)...the fact is, is that there is an unwritten rule that really needs to become written:[b] 'Don't, under any circumstances, annoy, flame, piss off, make fun of, or cast aspersions upon an admin or moderator.

I don't really believe that applies. I've been publicly and loudly critical of Andy over several instances in the last...oh...six months or so, as well as with how things run on ConquerClub. I've gotten a vacation, but that vacation was rather earned (I agreed with it). Why haven't I been more harshly punished than I have, given those criticisms?

I would happily admit that the admins will take strong criticism (in the academic sense) on the chin. Both you and I have written thousands of words (horrible thought...tens of thousands???) in debates about CC policy. They won't ban you for that. I know that.

So let's stick to the point at hand. How many times have you been mildly to seriously flamed in GD? From my own experience you get it in the neck for your perceived pro-mod bias and I've seen some fairly strong attacks on you. Were those members banned for their attacks? You can flame away here (especially single posts) as long as they don't cross the line into death threats, racists flames etc etc. But the point of this thread is that the kind of mild flames (such as the one highlighted above) end in a ban if directed at a member of Team CC.

So please don't muddy the waters with 'criticism'. I know they can take that...I dish it out myself often enough. What we are talking about here is how flames (as an example) are handled and whether there is a difference in the response if they are directed at a normal member or a Team CC Member.

I know you found my ban strange...but then I showed you how I had (for I expect the first time) targetted a moderator (Mpjh) with a mild dig after he was behaving like a complete trolling arse in a thread. A day later I was on that 'odd ban'.

Artimis wrote:I agree with this suggestion 100%.

Once everyone is made aware that talking out of turn to a member of Team CC will be punished more severely than if said infraction was committed against an ordinary member, then there will be less members crying foul, because we'll have been informed of this unwritten commandment.

Thou shall not disparage thy Mod or Admin.

I think I've come up with a theory to explain why this may seem to be the case. I'm not sure if it's correct, but I think there's some merit to the thought.

It's common knowledge (or should be) that the moderators do not read every single thread, much less every post within that thread. That's why the Report a Post function exists: to draw moderator attention to the possible infraction. Some of these comments that could be considered mild flames (or similar infractions) are not noticed because the mods don't read the thread, and the community members do not think the comment deserves a report. However, when a moderator does post in a thread, that means they're probably going to be following the thread on an active basis. So if a person then makes a mild flame in a thread a moderator is paying attention to, it's more likely to be caught and dealt with. So yes, there could be more cases where people flaming a moderator get punished while flaming other members does not get punished, but it could be credited to this situation.

Furthermore, posting any kind of flame in the Cheating & Abuse forum is probably the worst place on the entire site (other than a thread title): the hunters have to read every single thread.

C'mon Night Strike, your hypocricy is showing. Anyone who has a "history" of being warned and/or banned are sought out and singled out for minor infractions. Especially those who use to post frequently in Flame Wars and want Flame Wars back.

Many of us who complained about the demise of Flame Wars right after the April Fool's joke, were harrassed, intimidated and trolled by cyber-thugs who allied themselves with the Moderators. We got warnings and bans, but the Anti-Flaming-Flamers didn't receive bans and some were even rewarded.

These 6 months and/or perma-bans are excessively harsh and only chills the water for discussions and debates of issues. Of course, the floodgates of warnings and bans started after the April Fool's prank was pulled by the administrators of C.C. on the posters of Flame Wars.

Yes Night Strike, it's no secret that criticizing or mildly flaming a Moderator is the quickest way of getting banned. The playing field is not equal.

Regards,
General Stoneham

jpcloet wrote:
Keep in mind that Skittles just (like within the last week or so) came of a flaming holiday so that likely didn't help either. Nothing like flaming right after being punished previously for doing so. Some posters never learn. Hopefully the 6 month rule comes into play soon.

The original poster has a point; saying f*ck isn't considered a flame by site standards. I'm not sure that telling someone to grow the f*ck up even constitutes a flame, but even if it is, I've seen worse, reported worse, and rather than warnings, vacations, bans, etc., being issued, the answer comes back, "use ignore," and "use foelist."

Comparative instances like this teach .. exactly what the original poster claims.

Night Strike wrote:

Artimis wrote:I agree with this suggestion 100%.

Once everyone is made aware that talking out of turn to a member of Team CC will be punished more severely than if said infraction was committed against an ordinary member, then there will be less members crying foul, because we'll have been informed of this unwritten commandment.

Thou shall not disparage thy Mod or Admin.

I think I've come up with a theory to explain why this may seem to be the case. I'm not sure if it's correct, but I think there's some merit to the thought.

It's common knowledge (or should be) that the moderators do not read every single thread, much less every post within that thread. That's why the Report a Post function exists: to draw moderator attention to the possible infraction. Some of these comments that could be considered mild flames (or similar infractions) are not noticed because the mods don't read the thread, and the community members do not think the comment deserves a report. However, when a moderator does post in a thread, that means they're probably going to be following the thread on an active basis. So if a person then makes a mild flame in a thread a moderator is paying attention to, it's more likely to be caught and dealt with. So yes, there could be more cases where people flaming a moderator get punished while flaming other members does not get punished, but it could be credited to this situation.

Furthermore, posting any kind of flame in the Cheating & Abuse forum is probably the worst place on the entire site (other than a thread title): the hunters have to read every single thread.

I think we should indeed consider your theory.

It seems to suggest there is less motive, but more incompetence/out of 'touchness' to the issue. Your point seems to be that the moderators barely read any of the threads at all, and therefore miss all the mild to serious flaming against non-Team CC Members. This is really the only logical conclusion I can make to your statement, for how else could you all be missing so many flames?

So the mods aren't actually reading the threads in GD, off-topics, sugs and bugs...

Oh good.

However, the second issue we can draw from your statement is actually even more interesting. We can only assume that many, many more members would have been banned if they actually agreed with Team CC's interpretation of the rules. Otherwise, many more posts would have been reported, thus resulting in many, many more bans. Therefore we can only conclude that Team CC's views on flaming are at variance with the vast majority of the members. Otherwise there would be more bans.

So, your defence is that the mods aren't actually reading any of the threads and therefore miss all the flaming, and there aren't many more bans because so few of the readers/posters actually report any of the flaming..thus, and obviously and finally definitively proving, that the vast majority of the readers of the Team CC forums don't agree with the Team CC policy.


So I'm not sure your view of it is the one Team CC wants to run with. Seems to be a bit of an own goal to me.

However, I still think what you wrote is completely wrong. Team CC combined MUST read the vast majority of the threads and you all fail to report flaming unless it is aimed at you or one of your number.

Woodruff? Night Strike?

No come back?

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?

Woodruff isn't on Team CC, and I've been gone most of the day.

I think you took my theory with an extremely pessimistic view. It's not my point that barely any threads are read, but I know every thread isn't read. The whole point of the Report Post tool is to bring a moderator's attention to a thread. That is what the moderators are supposed to be on the lookout for. Everything else is up to which threads the moderator chooses to read. When I was a global mod, there were a lot of threads that I did not read (especially in off-topics). This was simply because I didn't have the time and/or wasn't interested in the topic. If a post from the thread was reported, I would go check it, but I didn't necessarily follow that thread. Volunteer moderators shouldn't be expected to follow every single thread; they should only be expected to show up when moderation is needed.

Night Strike wrote:The whole point of the Report Post tool is to bring a moderator's attention to a thread. That is what the moderators are supposed to be on the lookout for.

I know that whenever I use the "report post" button, nothing ever happens to the offending party. In fact, the last time I reported someone for flaming me, I was the one who ended up with a ban for my response to the flame.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I can only speak for my own experience.

Night Strike wrote:Woodruff isn't on Team CC, and I've been gone most of the day.

I think you took my theory with an extremely pessimistic view. It's not my point that barely any threads are read, but I know every thread isn't read. The whole point of the Report Post tool is to bring a moderator's attention to a thread. That is what the moderators are supposed to be on the lookout for. Everything else is up to which threads the moderator chooses to read. When I was a global mod, there were a lot of threads that I did not read (especially in off-topics). This was simply because I didn't have the time and/or wasn't interested in the topic. If a post from the thread was reported, I would go check it, but I didn't necessarily follow that thread. Volunteer moderators shouldn't be expected to follow every single thread; they should only be expected to show up when moderation is needed.

So maybe we can agree that the result is that if you flame a Team CC member (even mildly) you will be banned. However, if you flame a non- Team CC member you are unlikely to be banned.

It is just that we disagree on the why...

So what did you think of the case in question NightStrike? Two members banned, one for a humourous (or at least attempt at humour) flame on a rating page at jpcloet (1 line...no threats) and another for suggesting jpcloet grows up a bit. Do you consider these to be banworthy offences?

I have to ask, because I would suppose you support the escalating ban system. If you do, then I wonder if you believe these are the kind of offences that should be contributing to it. They don't seem to be very bad, do they? Remember, a member is looking at a 6 month ban if they generate what, 6 bans. That's a long time to be banned for suggesting someone grows up (or writes something of an equally non-offensive nature)

Also, if you did see the flame from Skittles! directed at say me, do you (hand on heart now) believe you would have reported it? Or would you have assumed I wouldn't have cared less and so let it go?

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. On the rating page flame, I think it was just the flaming that got reported, but there must have been other issues that led to the account being frozen (because accounts don't get frozen for just a flame). On the specific comment directed toward jp about growing up, I'm not going to second guess what was decided. The admin who saw the post felt that it was enough of a flame to be a break of the community guidelines, so the user was dealt with according to those guidelines.

I don't report very many posts: just the ones that I think definitely need to be noticed. I know there were several times when I was a global mod that if I wasn't 100% sure on whether something had crossed the line, I would ask for a second opinion from a fellow moderator. If one wasn't available, I would just wait to see if the post was reported before I took any action.

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. Disagreements happen, I think, because a lot of members believe that the posters should be given the benefit of the doubt, but most of the moderators err on the side of caution (and are thereby seen as heavy-handed). I think that is where the debate should lie: moderate with a mindset of leniency or caution.

..

..

Zombie73 wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The whole point of the Report Post tool is to bring a moderator's attention to a thread. That is what the moderators are supposed to be on the lookout for.

I know that whenever I use the "report post" button, nothing ever happens to the offending party. In fact, the last time I reported someone for flaming me, I was the one who ended up with a ban for my response to the flame.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I can only speak for my own experience.

now you see.............I HAVE NEVER USED THE REPORT POST FEATURE. I GUESS I AM NOT A CUNT WHO CANT HANDLE CRITICISM.

I think you missed the point of my post, Ron.

Mr Changsha wrote:Two members banned, one for a humourous (or at least attempt at humour) flame on a rating page at jpcloet (1 line...no threats) and another for suggesting jpcloet grows up a bit. Do you consider these to be banworthy offences?

The ratings flame was also bigotry IMO, the response was inappropriate on all levels. I could have simply removed my rating, however, this player did not deserve a free pass from me.

Suggesting I grow up, was also a lame response. It was off-topic and contributed nothing to the thread and clearly showed that that poster didn't even bother to read the whole thread before posting. Add to that fact they just came off a flaming holiday, shows that they have not intent on listening or following the rules.

In the context of both situations, the vacations were well earned. We need to stop rehashing old cases and focus on the true question of whether mods should be treated differently as posed above. I say you tread lightly around the mods, but that is just my opinion. I have a good sense of humor and it shows more in my pm's than public posts, 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.

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.

Timminz wrote:

Zombie73 wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The whole point of the Report Post tool is to bring a moderator's attention to a thread. That is what the moderators are supposed to be on the lookout for.

I know that whenever I use the "report post" button, nothing ever happens to the offending party. In fact, the last time I reported someone for flaming me, I was the one who ended up with a ban for my response to the flame.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I can only speak for my own experience.

now you see.............I HAVE NEVER USED THE REPORT POST FEATURE. I GUESS I AM NOT A CUNT WHO CANT HANDLE CRITICISM.

I think you missed the point of my post, Ron.

Oh yes! That "rat button" aka report button. This feature was used aggressively and as a "tool" by many of the Moderator's cyber-thugs to get posters banned. I personally NEVER EVER used that "rat button," for what? To get back at some jerk? Cause my little feelings were hurt, boo-hoo?

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!

It comes to this...Some guy/gal with an axe to grind can go to thread to thread and report some individual over and over again and also have their friends and allies join in the fun of getting some "meanie" banned for several minor infractions. WE'RE TALKING MINOR INFRACTIONS HERE! GEEEEZES CHRISTMAS!

My GOD! The Moderators know that this is happening, but they want to play along with these bottom-feeders. Shame on C.C. for this crime against paying customers who frequently post in the forums. And yes Night Strike, I know you don't care if they are paying customers or leaches.

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.

Regards,
General Stoneham