Vote on Forum Policy.

This is the Forum Moderation policy that Sheeps suggested, I'm posting it here for a general vote by the community.

And another attempt to keep it alive and push it along, here is my take on what the policy could be, based on feedback in this thread and my own thoughts:


winbolo.net moderation policy:
This policy is intended to create a free and open forum, with minimal restrictions. This is a 'living' document and will continue to be updated as required.

- Moderators (mods) may move topics to a different forum if it is posted in the wrong forum.
- Mods can post new topics in the news forum to appear on the front page of the site.
- Mods must make a comment saying that "moved by XYZ" or "locked by XYZ" and provide rational when needed.
- Mods may lock topics that are inappropriate*, with mod vote to unlock.
- No posting of illegal material or material that may be inappropriate* to younger people.
- No posting on specific methods on how to cheat/hack related to winbolo.
- Mods will be able to move inappropriate* threads to a moderator-only forum for discussion and if it should be moved back.
- Posts for "deletion" will be kept in the mod-only forum for future reference (and thus not really deleted, just removed from general view).
- Specific posts (when in otherwise fine thread) can ONLY be edited by a mod if a original copy is created in mod-only forum and voted upon. The edited post needs specific rational.
- Mods who break policy will get a chance to explain their rational to other mods, and get one warning before mod status is taken away.
- Elvis makes final decision on removal/addition of mods, but mods can take their own 'non-binding vote'. Elvis may choose to warn only for minor policy breaks.

Moderator voting:
- Mods will each have a single vote for each case, majority vote wins, with a quorum (minimum) of three moderators participating.
- Mods will have a minimum of one (1) week to cast a vote, and longer periods can be specified when the vote is started.
- Elvis will have veto and tie-breaker votes, as well as ability to change this policy at any time.
- If vote is 'to keep', the original post/thread will be returned to forum.

* Inappriopriate content examples
- Advertisements or spam for things not bolo related.
- Porn, warez, cracks, serials, etc.
- Links to viruses or other computer damaging websites.
- Double messages (second message can be deleted or moved to mod-only).

This seems okay to me, Min, but I'm gonna hold my vote until we get a discussion going. I'm a little tired right now so I might've missed something.

I don't really think there is much to discuss nova, either you agree or you don't, if you don't, then you probably think something needs to change, if something needs to change ... what?

Min

I agree 100% with this, lets clean up all this spam. Also another thing we should get is a warning system. Warn people who flame way too much or spam too much. Then once they reach their warning limit they're banned for some time. Reach their warning limit again, banned forever.

I've never moderated a phpbb forum before, so I'm admittedly ignorant, but can you permanently ban someone from a forum? Can they just change their name to dodge the ban, or can we actually ban IP addresses? Better yet, can we ban a range?

As a moderator of this phpbb, the only powers I have are to view the IP of the poster, edit their posts, or deleted their posts, as well as moving threads to other forums. So in its current state, its impossible to ban people from my position. Either way, babysteps with the forum policy, first we have to update it as it is, and then we can add additional stuff later after further discussion.

Min

Well admin can set permissions to mods so that they can ban people. When you ban someone from a forum it's an IP ban. The only way you can get back on is if you change your ip address. Which can be difficult.

I agree with this policy : I spend too much time to read idiot spam and bad words here ! :)

I voted ‘needs work’

1) Because if you take a look at the list of mods you can see where the vote thing is going to be a problem.
2) It needs inappropriate defined in a little more detail and very specific definition of what is inappropriate to “younger people”.
3) I don’t think we need hack or cheat info for anything
4) How about a little more of what happens to a mod should he/she move threads that are not in violation.

I’ve got some more about the voting numbers and procedures, but I think that’s enough for people to chew on for now. :)

Other then that the whole thing is fine in this perfect world, and if you believe that I've got a big red bridge I'd like to sell you...

I hardly look to the forums anymore for meaningful content... So any more power to the mods is a plus.

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing... Is a single "General" fully moderated forum, where posts are not allowed until a moderator approves them... Of course, there are no mods with this much time to commit to it. I just see so many posts that start out with a legitimate topic, and quickly deteriorate into nonsense. (though please, if Desmo returns, any of his posts should be allowed no matter how nonsensical!)

Nice job with the resurrection Minny.

As the policy mentions, it is a starting point, and it would change as needed going forward.

I would agree that if this policy is put into place, more mods would be needed, since currently only Min and I are the only ones (semi) active (not including E). I would think there needs to be at least 5 active mods (3 additional), so that 3 can be around to actually upkeep the policy.

It seems fair to say no hacks or cheats for anything, no need to have people share how to DDoS.

If a mod moves a thread that the other mods disagree, a quick vote is posted, and if majority of mods vote to move back, it gets moved back. This would normally take a week for the little stuff.

For inappropriate, I think we start with whats listed, and add as necessary:
- Advertisements or spam for things not bolo related.
- Porn, warez, cracks, serials, etc.
- Links to viruses or other computer damaging websites.
- No posting of illegal material
- No posting on specific methods on how to cheat/hack
- Double messages (second message can be deleted or moved to mod-only).

Two other possibilities that I'm not sure my position would be:
- swear words
- threats

Sheeps

I would hope that the moderators who are choosen aren't stupid enough to move threads around for no reason ....... and if they do ..... its not like it can't just be moved back ...... pretty minor.

Min

And either way, alot of this policy would not be able to be implemented until after elvis becomes active, and deals with a few of the missing portions of it, such as the moderator forum.

MIn

Yep, we need more mods. That's a fine idea. Don't elect me, however - I'll remove all profanity and innuendos and people will hate me for it. :?

Another problem. Alot of people have dynamic IP addresses(ones that change). It would be nearly impossible to ban someone with a dynamic ip. I think that we would need to contact internet providers to get around this to know what IP changes to what, which is undoable. Any suggestions?

I think we could also have two forum sections. A moderated one and an unmoderated one. This could be a compromise which would make all happy.

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Another problem. Alot of people have dynamic IP addresses(ones that change). It would be nearly impossible to ban someone with a dynamic ip. I think that we would need to contact internet providers to get around this to know what IP changes to what, which is undoable. Any suggestions?

not really relevant to the policy thats being voted on currently, but you would simply disable the accounts of the offender, and if they create a new account and continue their behavor, they would just be disabled again.

Min

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Another problem. Alot of people have dynamic IP addresses(ones that change). It would be nearly impossible to ban someone with a dynamic ip. I think that we would need to contact internet providers to get around this to know what IP changes to what, which is undoable. Any suggestions?

Actaully, I believe you can ban a block of IPs, as in one number I believe doesn't change and you block that. But of course this might block more then just that one person.

Heh, looks like min is back to his trick of trying to gain more power and more censorship powers over other people.

Considering min has contributed so much bullshit to this forum (check a lot of his posts from late 2003 to 2004), it's ironic he is trying to cast the flag of the savior in trying to get this mod policy adopted.

Min wrote:

- No posting of illegal material or material that may be inappropriate* to younger people.

Seems like a big loop hole that allows min to remove any post that he'll say isn't suitable to so-called "younger people." (it doesn't even define younger people age)

Even though it's a flawed moderation policy, I might actually support it if Min was not a mod - I'd trust Sheeps and Elvis, and maybe someone like Fermat. But I do not trust min.

So if Min is a mod, oh boy, here comes lotsa trouble. The only involvement I have with winbolo now is through posting and reading this forum once in a while. I'd be forced to stop even that if min can start deciding which of my posts he'd like to delete cuz in his opinion it's not suitable for a "younger people". Or min might get upset at me for an opinion of mine so he might decide to arbitrarly decide one of my post is not suitable for a "younger person" and thus delete it.

Heh, looks like min is back to his trick of trying to gain more power and more censorship powers over other people.

I have the ultimate power of censorship fi ...... all I gotta do is close my browser ..... perfect isn't it?

Considering min has contributed so much bullshit to this forum (check a lot of his posts from late 2003 to 2004), it's ironic he is trying to cast the flag of the savior in trying to get this mod policy adopted.

Yes, I have contributed alot of crap to this forum, and honestly, the majority of it would not be moderated by this policy. If you think I'm trying to 'save' anything, your completely wrong.

Min wrote:

- No posting of illegal material or material that may be inappropriate* to younger people.

I simply reposted sheeps policy, sheeps wrote it. Chat with him if you don't like the wording.

Seems like a big loop hole that allows min to remove any post that he'll say isn't suitable to so-called "younger people." (it doesn't even define younger people age)

pretty sure this was intended simply to stop people from posting porn .... oh no .. but this would stop you and cf from spamming the forums with idiocy ..... this is a bad thing right? ...

Even though it's a flawed moderation policy, I might actually support it if Min was not a mod - I'd trust Sheeps and Elvis, and maybe someone like Fermat. But I do not trust min.

Nice ....

So if Min is a mod, oh boy, here comes lotsa trouble. The only involvement I have with winbolo now is through posting and reading this forum once in a while. I'd be forced to stop even that if min can start deciding which of my posts he'd like to delete cuz in his opinion it's not suitable for a "younger people". Or min might get upset at me for an opinion of mine so he might decide to arbitrarly decide one of my post is not suitable for a "younger person" and thus delete it.

Well, seems that if I decided your post was inappropriate, this policy would allow me to move it to the mod only forum (which has not been created at this point) at which point the moderators would vote on weither it is in fact not suitable .... so ya .... your right .... It would just be horrible .... so ... so ... horrible ..... Grow up FI, its about time.

Min

Another note.... quite honestly fi, I think what winbolo needs, is for you to go away, the only thing You've managed to do here is stop the community from progressing, becuase you "never" agree with any ideas that would move the community forward, your the main cuase of most of the problems we currently have. Do us all a favor man, go away ... dont' come back ...

Min

Let me start of by saying that I hold you in highest regard, FI, and I'm not trying to shoot you down or degrade you with this post. Even though you sux. ;-)

FireIce wrote:

Heh, looks like min is back to his trick of trying to gain more power and more censorship powers over other people.

Censorship and more power over... how many people actually come here regularly? Sorry, this just sounds ridiculous.

FireIce wrote:

Seems like a big loop hole that allows min to remove any post that he'll say isn't suitable to so-called "younger people." (it doesn't even define younger people age)

Actually, note the * by "inappropriate". If you'll scroll down to the bottom of his post it defines "inappropriate": cheats, warez, hacks, etc. I'm too damn lazy to open up another window to retreive the quote but it's there, unless aliens are screwing with my head. In which case, tell them to knock it off 'cuz I'm better at it than they are.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind that this policy is not necessarily permanent. If it turns out to be horrid we can always change it.

Once again, FI, I have nothing against you.

Also, maybe we could have a seperate forum for screwing off like Fermat said. Maybe just not have it show up on the top 10, if at all possible? Just a thought.

That's a good idea Nova, I agree !

Nova wrote:

Censorship and more power over... how many people actually come here regularly? Sorry, this just sounds ridiculous.

wow, thanks nova, I wish I coulda thought up that before I posted earlier ... Becuause ridiculous is really the best way to describe it.

Nova wrote:

EDIT: Also, keep in mind that this policy is not necessarily permanent. If it turns out to be horrid we can always change it.

exactly, if the policy is misinterpreted in a way the community did not intend, we can simply have a discussion on changing it, then vote to change it, or not, if we come to a conclusion that it needs to be dealt with, its hardly a problem. The policy proposed has all the elements people feel this community needs(moderator accountability), while not being overly restrictive on free speech and open discussion. And taking this step is the second real step in the right direction (the first step was elvis implementing the first policy)

We have to remeber that this forum, and whats on it, is our public face. Its what people see before they start playing the game, and if all new players see is spam/porn/porn/cf and fi/etc then most will simply decide that its not worth it. Hense one of the reasons that the community is shrinking instead of growing.

Min