| Author | Discussion polygon: LWM Staff - Moderators |
|---|
#230
This is very interesting. I'm sure I closed that thread. Perhaps Arctic re-opened it and then decided to close it again.
for Slynky:
It can be considered very offensive on many fronts and I will remove it once this situation has been closed out. If you wish me to remove it prior, please inform me and I will remove it immediately. The thread referenced above is naturally offensive as well and should probably be removed once this situation is closed.
Yes, you are correct. I didn't remove it because prior to that thread there were numerous Q&H topics and PMs about this entire situation. If I had removed it, then I'm sure I'll be up on the chopping block for excessive moderation. I didn't ban Modi because he apologized and seeing this was his first offense in Q&H for awhile, I let him off with a verbal warning. By locking the thread I effectively stopped further instigations. If that didn't work, I would have went onto warning bans, longer bans for repeat offenses, and made more use of the "delete" button. |
and now I invite you to rip me apart, publically humiliate me see if I care... have your fun everybody
That is all we need is more insults to be posted which has nothign to do with the topic of this thread which is to discuss " Mods abusive actions"
Please don't invite, provoke or what ever you wish to call it to continue |
and now I invite you to rip me apart, publically humiliate me see if I care... have your fun everybody
Rip you apart? Humiliate you? No way!!! You deserve the heartfelt thanks of Kotrin and anyone opposed to this whole moderator abuse exercise. You, Modi, and Edwin did more to derail and negate the abuse arguments than anyone else could have done with any debate or argument no matter how eloquent. I could type thousands and thousands of words and never discredit so much of an argument so quickly.
Nicely done!
/gives a round of applause |
for Slynky:
The thread has already been linked to. So my question is you say it is wrong for Elven_Lord to have that screenshot in his profile yet YOU yourself have it in yours so it is ok for you to have it? I think you and Elven_Lord should be fined and or blocked.
And incase you missed it here it is
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1877799 |
264 - Did you miss my disclaimer at post #256?
Happy to take it down, QA. I only posted it to my profile after Elven_Lord removed it from his in an effort to make an earlier link confusing. I recounted as much in post #256 referenced above. It is now removed from my profile and if a mod/admin wishes to block and/or fine me, please feel free to do so. |
| Nope did not miss your disclaimer however a wrong can never be right for one andwrong for another no matter the excuse . no offense intended |
| Fair enough, QA. Your point is understood, if adamantly disagreed with. |
for Queen_Amanda:
for Slynky:
The thread has already been linked to. So my question is you say it is wrong for Elven_Lord to have that screenshot in his profile yet YOU yourself have it in yours so it is ok for you to have it? I think you and Elven_Lord should be fined and or blocked.
And incase you missed it here it is
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1877799
imo there should not be any type of comparison between persons doing shameful posts and persons making the sameful post public :-(
Queen Amanda please revise ;-) |
I don't think people are aware of the opportunity that this thread presents.
Under normal circumstances anyone that has a problem with a Mods action is directed to send a message to secretary (forum rule 1.5) and has no other real recourse if a Mod chooses not to answer them. For this thread forum rule 1.5 has been suspended and players can directly query moderators actions and, I would hope, expect an answer from the Mods themselves.
I for one would still like an answer to the questions I posed in post # 235 237 and 240.
Did a player complain about the length of titles in the Gratitudes and Congratulations Forum?
Did the Mod(s) simply decide it was now a problem when it hadn't been before?
Why was it decided that the Topic Title problem would start being penalised in the Gratitudes & Congratulations Thread and not some other thread (the Trades and Services threads have much longer and more elaborately adorned topic titles after all)?
Would any Mod care to answer these questions? After all according to an old post by Pang (https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1871503&page=1 - see post # 29) Mods usually discuss things like the decision to apply penalties to Topic Titles when none have been applied previously. So it would seem that if this matter was discussed by the Mods collectively and it was decided that it was a problem, then other Mods should be able to answer my questions and not just Kotrin.
Or was it a decision made by Kotrin and no-one else?
Again, if it had been discussed collectively then other Mods would be aware of the intention to start applying penalties for Topic Titles.
Would anyone else like to know the answers to these questions? I know I would appreciate being enlightened.
Grunge |
While moderators are considering Grunge's question above perhaps they could also answer the following and related questions.
1.
a) When & why did MODs decide to penalise people for bumping threads in the Trade sections?
b) Was this the result of a complaint? If so what?
c) Why was this then subsequently stopped after just a few days?
2.
a) Why did MODs decide to start to penalise people for bumping threads in the Clans section?
b) I know there was a private moderators discussion about this as it resulted in a lot of forum activity and the creation of a new rule? Was this new rule the result of a complaint? If so what?
c) If not what was the reason for its intoduction?
d) Why was it the subsequently decided to stop applying this rule?
e) Who decided this?
I dont mind which Moderator(s) answer these questions but like Grunge would like an answer. |
for DEATHisNEAR:
1a. As far as I know never. The bumping rule is only for Main forums.
2a-b. I believe it was yes due to excessive bumping and then due to complaints about moderator actions, the new rules were officially created.
d) I believe it is still being enforced, but we now no longer see the bumps, which was by far worse than the bumps in today's Trade forums.
e.) Arctic: https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1868260 |
Response to # 271
If you look in this thread (https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1869594&page=3) at post number 70, you can see that a penalty was applied, essentially for bumping the thread.
Grunge |
#271 - Thank you fot that Pantheon
re:
1 - A small number of people were given bans for bumping in the trade forums in December (which is why I asked). These bans were given by FaithBringer so maybe him or someone else who knows why can elaborate. (see post#70 as said by Grunge but also post #215 (in more detail)).
2 - From looking at clan threads it would appear that very few clans are still being subjected to bans even though very obvious bumps.
For example to highlight just a few from the current top 10 :
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1872623&page=last
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1875954&page=last
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1871825&page=last
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1870860&page=last |
#272
I know it's subtle, but Rule 4.3 is not the same as bumping.
6.1. Bumping the thread more than once in 24 hours. Bump is considered any post with the sole purpose of bringing the thread on top.
Flashmobs rule is more vague and broad.
You might to differ on this, but a mod can easily use 4.1 and 4.2 in the same way. |
#273
1 - Now I remember that situation, but the bans were only given during a short time period. Not sure why FB did them back then nor do I know now.
2 - 6.1. Bumping the thread more than once in 24 hours. Bump is considered any post with the sole purpose of bringing the thread on top.
Bumping as defined by local rule 6.1 is more than once in 24 hours. The examples you did pretty much complies with the rule. I remember back during the "bump wars" clan posts were bumped several times per hour 24/7. |
Response to #274
The question wasn't "Why were people penalised under the bumping rule.", the question was, "When & why did MODs decide to penalise people for bumping threads in the Trade sections?"
Rule 4.3 is a rule that can also be used for bumping (as was demonstated by Faithbringer) but hasn't been in the past. It was used, briefly, to penalise players for bumping threads in T&S.
Thank you for the answers you have provided. Now that question 1A in post # 270 has been clarified, it would be appreciated if you could answer the question posed. Thanks!
Grunge |
Sorry for the double post, but I didn't see # 275 while I was composing a reply to 274.
Grunge |
Interestingly, the thread I mentioned previously (where Pang describes the process of how the Mods collectively discuss how the Forum Rules should be enforced - See Post # 269 above) was a response to the situation where penalties were applied in the Trade & Services thread.
IMO, Pang was indicating that Mods do get together and discuss how rule infringements should be handled. It certainly *looks* like he was implying that the decision to start enforcing Forum Rule 4.3 was one taken collectively by the Mods as a group.
Obviously, if you were unaware of why forum rule 4.3 started to be enforced in the Trade & Services forum (apparently selectively so, bumping in the OGF has always been tolerated, for example - just look at the Cover-up thread that keeps popping up on top of this one), it can't have been discussed with *all* mods. So can could someone that discussed the decision to enforce Forum Rule 4.3 in the Trade & Services Forum provide us with an answer? I imagine members of Clan # 10 could enlighten us. Unless it was a decision taken by FaithBringer independently of any discussion with any other Mods?
Any and all answers are greatly appreciated. Thanks especially to Pantheon for being the first to provide answers to players regarding past Moderation decisions in a thread particularly intended for such. Bravo!
Grunge |
for Grunge:
Just for clarification I'm not a "moderator" as defined under clan#10, so I don't know anything more about forum rule 4.3 than any other normal player. My above posts regarding questions about rules and past judgments are just my interpretation of publicly available rules and my recollections of forum trolling during aforementioned situations.
Thank you. Nice to hear some actual feedback about whether or not I'm a positive influence on the forums. |
Forum Rule 4.3 has possible implications for Queries and Help "Sages". I would have thought they would have been included in a discussion about such a potentially wide ranging rule.
Certainly people posting in Q&H could violate such a rule, so I would have thought Sage input and notification would have been useful.
Grunge |
