Ask a moderator about the forum and the rules

[Messiah 2]

same difference

[hardrock 1]

But it's also a little controversial. On one hand people like karantan are trying to improve the forum's quality by discussing the matter with the moderators, on the other hand some people are trying to be "funny" by spamming this discussion.

Why should the moderators wish to discuss anything publicly with the community if the result is people spamming the thread? Why should they NOT hand out quite a few WLs in this situation?

[Messiah 2]

because they themselves, and to quote yourself, spammed the thread in an attempt to be funny? (or at least I took those WL threats etc to be an attempt at humour)

I think the old system worked before and I see little need to change it other than remove certain members here who think this is the time to try and push their luck and their spam count, now that placebo left... why they see it as an oppurtunity to ruin these forums, I don't know. Removing such people would improve these forums more dramatically than changing the rules at this stage.

but its everyones own opinion at the end of the day surely... Perhaps in an effort to show that business is as normal since paul left, the strictness has gone up to show that there is no sudden change in regime... but it happened to have annoyed and slapped a few people in the process?

[JdB 151]

because they themselves, and to quote yourself, spammed the thread in an attempt to be funny? (or at least I took those WL threats etc to be an attempt at humour)

Also Placebo (the ex-uber verwalter) and a moderator (Kronzky) post off-topic things (spam), or try adding somewhat on-topic things to the bottom of the post to not break the forum rules too much, without retribution.

It's the same on every forum. Moderators (or even ex-moderator friends) can break the rules without getting into trouble, or having some other moderator play it down "we'll decide if it breaks the rules, thank you" when people question the posting behaviour, or by saying that it is part of their job.

Quote[/b] ]Why should the moderators wish to discuss anything publicly with the community if the result is people spamming the thread? Why should they NOT hand out quite a few WLs in this situation?

If you look at the discussion earlier about image size, it's the "no f*cking way"-manner of replying by moderators that causes comments like the ones made earlier that got some members warning blocks and/or post restrictions (as well as some adolescence). Before those comments the discussion was alot more civilised and mature.

Quote[/b] ]This is not up for debate.

Quote[/b] ]You all can follow the rules or, if you don't want to respect them, leave the forums.

Quote[/b] ]The rule stays.

All of the above has the same adolescence, but now in the "don't tell me what to do on this forum, it's mine, ALL MINE!" flavor.

It's like having all good addonmakers comment on your addon that could use improvement and replying to them with: "what the hell do you all know, go play with your joysticks you bunch of gimps".

Being a moderator is first and foremost about communication, cooperation and respect, not just about enforcing the rules like they are divine writings.

By having moderators reply like Shadow and Raedor did, cooperation and respect can never be achieved from members that have any form of self-respect, bullying is something done in school playgrounds, not on a forum in a discussion between mainly mature members. Rules that only apply to the members, and not to the moderators (whenever they feel like breaking them) will never be respected (or the particular moderators trying to enforce them for that matter).

That is one of the reasons that Placebo did such a good job, and was respected as a moderator. He didn't threaten people with WB's or PR's only to break the same rule himself 5 minutes later (or so to speak) and covering it up himself, or having another moderator friend do it for him to avoid suspicion.

Rules apply to everyone, everywhere on the forum and everytime someone posts, not limited by membergroups or seniority (as pointed out earlier by some moderators).

[baddo 0]

/me applauds JdB's words,

if there were a ranking system on this forum you would have received some positive karma points now, friend.

[Messiah 2]

I've noticed those 'karma' points on other forums... can someone perhaps explain how they work?

[Ironsight 1]

I've noticed those 'karma' points on other forums... can someone perhaps explain how they work?

It's different everywhere. Generally it works like you have an ammount of points over a certain period that you can give away to other members.

[Messiah 2]

aaah ok, so its essentially people awarding you with points for useful and insightful posts, whereas I assume moderators can remove them for spam?

interesting if not a little pointless though - I know I'm too lazy to bother awarding 'karma' points to a good post... but thats me

[kronzky 5]

aaah ok, so its essentially people awarding you with points for useful and insightful posts, whereas I assume moderators can remove them for spam?

That's the theory.

In practice it's mostly that people get positive points by others who agree with them (or who are their buddies), and negative ones by people who disagree.

About as meaningful as a pure post count.

[JdB 151]

I agree about a karma system sounding nice in theory, but being rubish in reality. Just because you might belong to some disliked modteam would mean a very negative karma rating, but says nothing about your actual participation on the forum. It would only work in a perfect world with honest and unbiased people, which is of course just a myth.

[kronzky 5]

Also Placebo (the ex-uber verwalter) and a moderator (Kronzky) post off-topic things (spam), or try adding somewhat on-topic things to the bottom of the post to not break the forum rules too much, without retribution.

JdB, it's not a good idea to accuse people of spamming, and then not being able to show any evidence for that claim.

That's a pretty serious accusation, and since you just made it up, out of nothing, you now got a one week ban, plus 2+WL.

[Messiah 2]

In practice it's mostly that people get positive points by others who agree with them (or who are their buddies), and negative ones by people who disagree.

About as meaningful as a pure post count.

thats what I suspected as well... just shows how many buddies you have rather than anything else.

can the post counts and join dates be hidden to only moderators, or put into your profile? that way it doesn't clutter the forum, and it's hardly worthwhile spamming to get a high post count seeing as it's not visible anymore.

although I have a feeling the old 'this forum wont allow it' problem may surface

[Ironsight 1]

Yay another warning level!

Quote[/b] ]You have been warned by a staff member. Your warning level has been increased, and this will be viewable to all members. Once you have reached the maximum warning level, your posting permissions will be revoked.

You have been warned from the following post: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....1046000

Quote[/b] ]

You got to be kidding me

April fools was already on the 1st.

If you disagree with a moderator action, send a PM.

Don't use the forum for that (you should know the drill by now).

I want to get your attention to the bold sentence. Last time I did that it didn't help me either...

I don't know if you moderators know it but you are completely ruining this forum. This forum is becoming unpostable. It's impossible to make a post containing a joke or remark without being PR'ed WL'ed etc.

This place went really downhill since Placebo left, great job, he hasn't been gone for half a year and this place is ruined...

[mr burns 131]

That warning level giveaway´s are getting on my nerves.

No, i won´t question "a moderators action" for which i´d surely get my own personal WL in no time - but i´m questioning the board moderation style as a whole.

When will you guys stop to drive member off these boards?

Could understand your hate if it was about some newly joined trolls, but recently you´ve been giving WL´s out to so many good people that one could believe all the moderators are on a powertrip.

deanosbeano already left, MattRochelle won´t be posting any updates on his missions .. i mean .. what the hell am i coming here for?

Surely not to see another member whose stuff i´m after getting banned/WL´ed/ or whatever bad stuff you´re able to do.

Keep it like that & sooner or later you´ll be moderating an empty and poor forum where you can be on your own. *sigh*

[franze 196]

Let's clear up a few things here:

There's more than 40,000 users registered on this board. Granted, not all of them are active members of the community, but it's large enough to make a difference in moderation.

What that means is we don't allow the average run-of-the-mill user to go out and make a joke which may or may not break the rules, or jest with other users for the heck of it. The reason why moderators *sometimes* get away with it is because the moderating staff know each other a lot better than Joe in America knows Friedrich in Germany. But don't go and tell us that we're around constantly breaking rules and claim that we always get away with it.

So, if this community were maybe a 50th of the size it is now, you could probably be sure that things would be much more lax. As it stands, our very large community prevents that 'intimate' feeling that you might get from a much smaller community. Therefore, we attempt to keep the board as orderly as possible by restricting what a user can post. We consider many things such as grievances between users (in a lot of cases, a 'why did I get Z from moderator X?' ) to be handled outside of the public domain. It is far too easy to get into a flame fest regarding WLs, PRs and bans. As it stands, if a user has any problem with a disciplinary action taken against him/her, they can bring it up with a moderator and find out why or settle it. That doesn't mean somebody is going to instantly unbanned for posting tons of porn or getting a WL knocked down because they didn't read the rules, but it can help to keep things from going sour. Sometimes.

On the other hand, I suppose it's easier to call the moderators 'nazi, fascist, evil, nasty, power-hungry, gestapo pigs' than it is to read the rules and understand why you got a swift kick in the ass.

[karantan 0]

Hm, well, as I can see the discussion has sailed into some rough waters ... Not good and quite sad. But I'm also one of those who are like sensing that the 'order' on/of this site is slowly but surely deteriorating. Who's to blame for it? Well, if you asking me it always takes two to tango ...

Now back to the matter. As I see most of the members which has joined the discussion agree with the suggestion, and they're in favor for the changes. Also it should be looked on Baddo's post on a previous page for some additional guidiance, except for that rating system. As some others has already pointed out it's not good; the rating systems are hiding the same 'evil' inside, if not even greater, than those 'incriminated' indicators.

I think that mostly all what's essential for the matter has been said, so where we're going from here? There's not a single decisive answer from the moderators, a positive or a negative, despite they've posted numerous of times by now about the matter. So, what it will be?

[Ironsight 1]

What that means is we don't allow the average run-of-the-mill user to go out and make a joke which may or may not break the rules, or jest with other users for the heck of it. The reason why moderators *sometimes* get away with it is because the moderating staff know each other a lot better than Joe in America knows Friedrich in Germany.

So you guys know each other like for 2 or 3 months? C'mon...

Quote[/b] ]So, if this community were maybe a 50th of the size it is now, you could probably be sure that things would be much more lax. As it stands, our very large community prevents that 'intimate' feeling that you might get from a much smaller community. Therefore, we attempt to keep the board as orderly as possible by restricting what a user can post. We consider many things such as grievances between users (in a lot of cases, a 'why did I get Z from moderator X?' ) to be handled outside of the public domain. It is far too easy to get into a flame fest regarding WLs, PRs and bans. As it stands, if a user has any problem with a disciplinary action taken against him/her, they can bring it up with a moderator and find out why or settle it. That doesn't mean somebody is going to instantly unbanned for posting tons of porn or getting a WL knocked down because they didn't read the rules, but it can help to keep things from going sour. Sometimes.

Well last time I did this my second PM got ignored. It usually doesn't help. I rather do it in public now so my question or remark doesn't get trown into the trashbin.

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand, I suppose it's easier to call the moderators 'nazi, fascist, evil, nasty, power-hungry, gestapo pigs' than it is to read the rules and understand why you got a swift kick in the ass.

You think you are doing a good job? Give me a break, I can name a dozen examples where you guys acted not in a correct and appropriate way.

In my view at least half of the moderator board should get dismissed. It would prevent at least half of the situations from getting out of control because some moderator takes himself to seriously.

[shadow 6]

I think that mostly all what's essential for the matter has been said, so where we're going from here? There's not a single decisive answer from the moderators, a positive or a negative, despite they've posted numerous of times by now about the matter. So, what it will be?

I also agree that there are alot of good points (and some bad ones) in that article.

But I think I have said this before; due to alot of issues with the current database there will not be made any changes to this board's functionality. That also includes minor changes like hiding the post-count.

Ofcourse when we get a new board we wil be open for all serious comments and ideas.

I hope this answered your questions

So you guys know each other like for 2 or 3 months? C'mon

We dont recruit people we dont know. We only invite peple one or more moderator knows personally and have a history.

Quote[/b] ]Well last time I did this my second PM got ignored. It usually doesn't help. I rather do it in public now so my question or remark doesn't get trown into the trashbin.

If you believe your messages were ignored you should have contacted me. I only ignore messages where the person is letting out steam by ranting and the message has no real content.

Just because you think you are ignored by a moderator is not an excuse and does not make you excempt from the board rules. Usually it only speeds up the process for perm-banning as usually someone who complain about some punishment in public, has already just recently been punished for some other rule-breaking.

Quote[/b] ]You think you are doing a good job?

He did not say he was doing a good job. But I am. He and all the other moderators are doing a very good job.

Quote[/b] ] Give me a break, I can name a dozen examples where you guys acted not in a correct and appropriate way.

In my view at least half of the moderator board should get dismissed. It would prevent at least half of the situations from getting out of control because some moderator takes himself to seriously.

I'm sure you can. You just proved that we are of different opinions. 90% of a moderators job is to evaluate opinions.

Post-restricting people for flaming or post-restricting people for posting too big pics in the photography thread are the easy part (the remaining 10%).

Now if you have anything to say regarding your ignored message, please send me that in private and we'll take it from there.

[Ironsight 1]

PM on the way.

[ozanzac 0]

Just a general observation, and for the possibility of generating good PR for the moderators....

The 'changing of the guard' within the moderator ranks, has left a feeling of 'Who are the new moderators', or even 'Where did you pop up from?’ in some cases. (No offence)

Having read through some of your profiles, most of you have been around since very early in the piece.

But that doesn't really say much about, who you are, your backgrounds, what got you into OFP/ArmA, why you want to be a moderator e.t.c. and that particularly applies to the newly appointed moderators, because quite honestly, I'd barely come across some of you before.

Now I know, that in a community of umpteen thousand members, the opportunity to get a 'feel' for everyone, isn't quite there.

But, in an effort to return that cosiness of knowing, 'who is in charge', I ask that there be some sort of thread created, where the moderators give us a brief rundown about themselves, in an effort to return the past feeling of goodwill within the forum, that Placebo, had managed to build up.

[Messiah 2]

Quote[/b] ]We dont recruit people we dont know. We only invite peple one or more moderator knows personally and have a history.

this worries me slightly in the fact that it could turn to a cosy group of friends running the forum, instead of having a diverse and open minded bunch of staff...

not saying that it has or anything, just that it may...

[Rhodite 3]

Quote[/b] ]We dont recruit people we dont know. We only invite peple one or more moderator knows personally and have a history.

this worries me slightly in the fact that it could turn to a cosy group of friends running the forum, instead of having a diverse and open minded bunch of staff...

not saying that it has or anything, just that it may...

To Clarify a little (and ease concerns)

Since I was appointed, there have been a few more new moderators, the process is transparent within the mod team.

When a slot needs filling we do not turn to our best mate etc..

Candidates are submitted by the mods and then voted on.

We look for people who have the qualities we think a good moderator needs. Most of the mods have been around long enough to know strong candidates for the job, but not all take the job when asked. (probably want to stay sane   )

I know very well Shadow & BIS would NOT allow the mod team to be made up from a clique of friends etc.

[Messiah 2]

okie dokie - just the way it was worded sounded exactly like a clique of friends.

[shadow 6]

But I thought we were friends, Rho

Quote[/b] ]Having read through some of your profiles, most of you have been around since very early in the piece.

But that doesn't really say much about, who you are, your backgrounds, what got you into OFP/ArmA, why you want to be a moderator e.t.c. and that particularly applies to the newly appointed moderators, because quite honestly, I'd barely come across some of you before.

I see what you mean. Recently we had to recruit many new moderators because of Arma and the boom of new forum registrants. Also as Paul left shortly therafter and now Nick, we had 2 persons to replace. We might get one more moderator soon depending on what happens here when Arma is out in the US.

I'm no good with speeches so I'll let the new mods tell you themselves if they want to. My suggestion is perhaps make a concrete list of questions and then post them here for the mods to respond to instead of asking one question at a time which tends to start a very off-topic debate.

[abs 2]

Shadow:

- What is your favourite food?

- How old were you when you first drank?

- What is your favourite number?

- How tall are you?

- What do you look for in a woman?

Abs