This topic has been moved to General Discussion.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40372.0
This topic is not “related to the website or the forums”, but initiates a possible discussion.
Discussion for new forum policies
-
Well obviously the rules we get from you and Yanny ( before) are all we got to go on.
Also, we are posters like anybody else. When somebody continuously performs a cyber bully both in off colored posts and PM’s, it is not a chance to blame the victim, but to enforce the already established rules against the perpetrator of this affair. Never be wishy washy about enforcement. Once you go down that road, that emboldens the perpetrators to see how they can push the rules around since they are never punished.
Again, all you need is too tweak what Yanny wrote and make it clear it’s for all the forums.
Also, make it clear to Moderators what the new rules are and how to enforce them as you wish.
It is not a democracy, you own the site and the site is not owned by the community. At a basic level you got to be in charge and make rules as you see fit, and nobody who moderates should be blamed for doing what you ask us.
-
You don’t get it, trolling is not the same as flaming. What you’re describing is a flame not a troll.
I and talking about personal attacks against a person.
Saying “anyone who builds a factory in X is an idiot” is nothing to be worried about.
It crossed the line when somebody says Mantf for Fu**ing noob you suck for building that factory.
NOBODY SHOULD PERSONALLY BE ANY PART OF A FLAME OR TROLL.
- A Flame is usually against a person.
- A Troll is a poster who consistently posts very loud, hurtful sentiments just to see how it may effect others. They are like a fire starter who like to see people try to put out the fire and watch people suffer. They usually suffer with self esteem issues as they try to draw attention to themselves because early in life they never got support from others.
I would rather just see people exchanging ideas here. Their is no need to cut people down for any reason. That alone drives people away from this site much greater than anything else that was ever done.
-
nobody who moderates should be blamed for doing what you ask us.
I agree IL, entirely.
But at the same time…
Moderators need be held tightly accountable for when they go too far.
For Example Craig A. Yope’s name being removed from the MIA thread; Is an item that has led to the circumstances you and I have found ourselves in together.
As part of your statement:
NOBODY SHOULD PERSONALLY BE ANY PART OF A FLAME OR TROLL.
From the Yope example, so too should it be, that noone is personally targetted by a moderator.
-
And nobody should be personally targeted by a moderator.
Yes right unless they commit a flame, troll, hijack, or other violation of the rules. When they violate the rules repeatedly, they will be targeted repeatedly for each infraction.
It is not the case if a poster violates rules more than once, the other times we should ignore that poster so that he does not feel “targeted” for continually violating the rules.
It’s like a serial killer and the police prosecute him for the first killing, ignoring the other 10 murders so as not to get “personally targeted by Police”
-
You guys post too much. :-D
I’m removing (I have removed) the irrelevant posts in this thread.
-
Not once in this post have you used troll correctly. You keep talking about flames. Flames will be against the rules. I’m considering that trolling will not be against the rules unless it violates other rules, which in your ******* example would have violated other rules.
@Imperious:
You don’t get it, trolling is not the same as flaming. What you’re describing is a flame not a troll.
I and talking about personal attacks against a person.
Saying “anyone who builds a factory in X is an idiot” is nothing to be worried about.
It crossed the line when somebody says Mantf for Fu**ing noob you suck for building that factory.
NOBODY SHOULD PERSONALLY BE ANY PART OF A FLAME OR TROLL.
- A Flame is usually against a person.
- A Troll is a poster who consistently posts very loud, hurtful sentiments just to see how it may effect others. They are like a fire starter who like to see people try to put out the fire and watch people suffer. They usually suffer with self esteem issues as they try to draw attention to themselves because early in life they never got support from others.
I would rather just see people exchanging ideas here. Their is no need to cut people down for any reason. That alone drives people away from this site much greater than anything else that was ever done.
-
I’m still trying to catch up here …
Next ** I’m going to motion that option #2, NEVER be allowed, unless requested by the original poster/user.
There is no reason to edit anyones material - ever. If someone posts offensive (or otherwise) material, Simply MOVE it to the quarantine, if community voting hasn’t already hidden it.
Yes to the above!
That said, � IF/WHEN something is moved, THAT is the time to strike, and make largely public, to the mods, user, and administration, that the thread clearly violated the rules, intention of the site, and was an obscenity/concern for the public.
Too often I’ve seen posts/threads by myself, or others, that are just removed. � With no ensuing discussion.
You all have permission to call me an idiot, but how the hell are people supposed to learn whats appropriate/inappropriate behaviour, if there’s never a discussion between several parties and themselves as to what the issue is? � This process needs to be addressed.
To the above: exactly! What if the world’s best player is a little too arrogant and starts spouting off, gets a few posts deleted, doesn’t know what to do, and just finds another community. But if there is a feedback loop, i.e., “You made some excellent points but when you said ‘ex why zee’ to Bob it was too harsh, can you edit your post and tone it down?”
Another concern is the -matter of opinion- factor.
A user posts something grey, which a mod in their opinion might think is off key… � but that the community and the original user don’t give a damn about. � Does it need to be moderated?
Perhaps the AUTHORITY to act, should be directly proportional, to the vote/value of the post or thread?
Of course, a community culture of “psst ok guys, stop the flame fest, I’m voting this gong show down” will have to develop, but I think it will naturally.
Right now, we don’t quite have the tools to make this work and it’s why we need moderators. I would like to see a self moderating community that still works under rules and only requires an appointed moderator when the community can’t handle it themselves. The problem is you need a lot more features that this or any other forums supports to make that happen. (This is a problem that I would like to fix for the internet. :wink:) Short of better tools, we need specific people to help out.
-
Not once in this post have you used troll correctly
“a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response”
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.
Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts – hence the often-seen warning: “Please do not feed the trolls”.
Sounds just like my impression of what a troll is. Again a flame might be a personal attack, while a Troll posts something for the community to read not necessarily directed against another person.
-
I would like to do this, not sure how to implement that on this forum? Just a little “edit” at the end of the post like this?
djensen: Please edit this post to remove the inflammatory remark directed at people who like to attack USSR on turn 1 with Japan. Just state your reasons why it’s bad.
Thinking outside the box.
Instead of arbitrarily editing a users post, Perhaps the moderator could “request” publically, that the user edit his own post. Said user would likely fulfil the request. (or if he didn’t face the consequences of arbitration anyways). At least they would learn the lesson subtly.
And in areas where users don’t have edit permissions, like the games section. I have yet to see anyone care about language, because nobody reviews the game threads, except the gamers playing mostly.
-
It is not a democracy, you own the site and the site is not owned by the community.
Technically true. But ‘community members’ ought to feel like they have an ownership interest in the site. If people feel they are ‘co-owners’ they most likely will have more incentive to take care of ‘the property’ and nurture it to ensure it’s continue upwards trajectory.
I think stating to fans that since they have no real ownership equity they are just like everyone else is counterproductive.
I think we all can agree we need moderators and value their passion and time. I for one would not want to be relied upon to do the job, but the powah would be kinda cool mind you. However, I think the action if any they take should be guided by the thumbs up/down.
A suggestion: Perhaps there ought to be a sticky-noted thread where users can post a link to something they feel should be voted on by the community. This would serve the dual purpose of bringing it to the attention of the moderators while at the same time having the ‘community’ provide it’s input.
-
the longer somebody is a moderator, the more it affects their ability to moderate and/or stay sane. Maybe long time active moderators need a yearly vacation? Maybe we rotate moderators more often?
Agreed. Perhaps term limits. The more people that get to participate, even as moderators, the better. It would allow other participants to feel a bit more invested, the greater number of positive, helping hands you have in the forums the better. Teaching, coaching & participating, in a positive manner, s/b, IMO, the primary goal of any mod.
You can create a placard for past MODS, so the veterans can wear their medals proudly. As stated earlier, IMO, a MODS place in the treads should be minimized as much as possible and by adopting some of the changes it appears you are considering it would make it easier for more people to agree to get involved.
Another option would to have a tiered level of MOD status. Perhaps the thought of having all new mods makes your head spin? Perhaps you keep a certain core or Senior MODS (who agree to their new lesser roles) and who don’t actively do anything but manage a group of junior mods? W/respect to the gaming area I still consult DarthM on nearly everything. I always PM/copy him on any issues that arise. IMO, he is the Sr MOD and I am just assisting him. I can’t speak for him but I feel this type of working relationship has benefitted the gaming area.
-
Term Limits is a good idea.
What about ELECTED moderators?
Basically, every January 1st or July 1st, or whatever, the community picks 5(?) moderators to govern the forum.
Moderators with good judgement, who are respected, and treat others with respect, will certainly be retained. New ones that people are ready for will be given oppurtunities, and the ability to replace moderators who go inactive, or are pursuing other interests becomes a possibile.
Candidates can simply post that they are interested, and barring Djensen’s Veto vote, ask the community for the spot.
-
Votes would be done publically in a thread. (If someone REALLY wanted to vote in private, they could PM it).
For Example:
I Gargantua Pick these 5 moderators
-Joe
-Sue
-Bill
-Jane
-Daniel -
- Term Limits
- Rotating Seats
- Tiers for Moderating Power
- Elected (Campaign platforms?)
All excellent ideas……
-
What about ELECTED moderators?
If we learned anything from World War II, it is that democracy is better than authority. It is entirely correct that A&A.org should be a democracy.
-
Good to see the enthusiasm! But let’s be careful with the wording here lol…
Moderation at AA.org should be by elected members. :)
IE the community granted the authority… And obviously, the site is DJensen’s to do what he wants with! :P
-
And obviously, the site is DJensen’s to do what he wants with!
Which means it’s not a Democracy. It can be more open, but in the end the decisions are from the ownership.
If you walk into say some store and tell them how to run their business they don’t oblige do they?
-
A successful store owner would listen to customers.
On principle, any arrangement that is more democratic should always be preferable to a system that is less democratic (whether or not you call it “a democracy”). That works in government, in business, and just about anytime you have a bunch of people engaged in some activity in need of leadership. When a leadership has the legitimacy of having been elected, their exercise of power is more open to scrutiny and less likely to stray beyond what the electors want. In this case, Moderators serve as a form of leadership, acting on behalf of the community’s need to police itself when necessary. Why shouldn’t there be a vote once a year, if only to re-elect the good Moderators and let the community thank them for their good work?
-
A successful store owner would listen to customers.
yes when it pertains to products. You can’t tell the store owner which software to use for his accounting or how to hire new people, or who even to hire.
It’s up to him.
Do you regularly tell WOTC how to run their website and do they even respond to your opinions regarding how or whom they manage their business?
How bout Harris Game Design?
How bout Facebook?
-
Sorry, but I don’t share your faith that the practices of Facebook or any other business is evidence that unelected leadership is superior to elected representation in any context, business or otherwise. I guess that reflects a difference of ideology, but that’s OK; it’s a free country and we are entitled to our different philosophies. I apologize if I accidentally moved this discussion in a direction too political.
Suggested Topics
