WBN policy revision

I don't remember what I voted for last time but currently I don't see any reason at all to keep spam messages, flames and other general nonsense on wbn instead of deleting it.

They are nothing more than temporary threads or posts and there's no harm done if they are removed. Why archive garbage?

What needs to happen in order for temporary postings to be removed? A vote? Moderator discussion? I urge whatever process need be to start.

Thanks.

jhood wrote:

I don't remember what I voted for last time but currently I don't see any reason at all to keep spam messages, flames and other general nonsense on wbn instead of deleting it.

They are nothing more than temporary threads or posts and there's no harm done if they are removed. Why archive garbage?

What needs to happen in order for temporary postings to be removed? A vote? Moderator discussion? I urge whatever process need be to start.

Thanks.

Its simple, certian people need to get their heads out of their ass's. Thats all it takes to allow deletion of garbage. Unfortunately for certain people, this will never occur.

Min

What got the policy change rolling last time?

jhood wrote:

What got the policy change rolling last time?

I posted suggested changes, and had people vote on it. Keep in mind that the certain people I'm refering to also vowed to never post on the forums again if the suggested changes I wrote had taken full effect. Your welcome to modify the policy to your liking and post a revised copy for discussion. Thats what would get things rolling IMO

Min

Also keep in mind people's main problem with the policy is that a moderator may have the power to stomp on their imagined 'freedom of speech' on a internet forum. Which is why we don't just have a regular forum policy like most of the other forums out there.

Min

That was an issue while revising the irc policy. I think if there are clear rules and guidelines setup that classify what's a violation and what isnt we should be ok. Perhaps use a typical flamewar or spam post as a fingerprint and remove any such topics that are similar to that.

Will work on it thanks for the suggestion.

jhood wrote:

That was an issue while revising the irc policy. I think if there are clear rules and guidelines setup that classify what's a violation and what isnt we should be ok. Perhaps use a typical flamewar or spam post as a fingerprint and remove any such topics that are similar to that.

Will work on it thanks for the suggestion.

well, if you want to look at the policy closely, It gives me enough wiggle room that I can lock/move threads for whatever reason I decide. Its -impossible- in my opinion to have clear rules for that sort of thing. Its like trying to define to an AI all the possible different variations of a certain ruleset. The policy would span pages. And would be written in legaleze. You also have to understand, what you think is appropriate, someone else may not feel is. Like, you can use a fingerprint of a typical flamewar, but why is deleting flamewars a priority? some people like them. Spam, well, what classifies as spam? .. DTM type posting? or just posting thousands of smilies? ... And those are definately not the only variables. Personally I think the policy is fine the way it is. I don't delete stuff, I edit the thousand smilie posts to only be a couple hundred smilies, I move advertising to general chat .... what more do we need?

Min

I think you pretty much questioned my suggestion to remove spam and flamewars. I guess that's alot easier than actually trying to do it.

I ran into this head first while trying to revise the IRC policy. I offered to write a three or four paragraph solid policy that defined everything without going overboard, only to have lazy or misunderstanding ops bullshit me with the "oh that's gray area!" scapegoat before they even read my revision.

*clap clap*

jhood wrote:

I think you pretty much questioned my suggestion to remove spam and flamewars. I guess that's alot easier than actually trying to do it.

I ran into this head first while trying to revise the IRC policy. I offered to write a three or four paragraph solid policy that defined everything without going overboard, only to have lazy or misunderstanding ops bullshit me with the "oh that's gray area!" scapegoat before they even read my revision.

*clap clap*

Like I mentioned before, I welcome any writing you are willing to do, and Look forward to reading it. Not that its my choice either way is it? .... If you think you can make a solid policy in 3 or 4 paragraphs, I look forward to reading it. You write it, post it, we look at it, make comments, you post a vote if you wish. Pretty simple. All my previous post was outlining is that you have to keep what people actually want in mind. For example if you create a policy stating that flamewars are not allowed, I probably won't vote yes on it. Just becuase you want something, doesn't mean everyone does. Just keep that in mind.

Min

It was my intention to have a seperate flame section of the forums the way we have general and bug reports and to remove posts that hijack threads to bash and flame, or go completly off topic on the sole purpose to bash or flame. It would be similar to the match up forums, and possibly not showed on the main page due to search engines indexing the flames but thats something else entirely.

An example:

This thread is a bash right off the bat, it was created for the very purpose of flaming another player, either light-hearted or not. I'm suggesting this would be moved into a seperate public but not highly advertised "flamewar" section of WBN whereas

this thread would have some of the posts removed where a player decided to change subjects by hijacking the thread.

Both are examples of flames and using a logical unbiased conclusion (I think we're all able to do that) this would be a widely accepted solution.

What do you think?

jhood wrote:

It was my intention to have a seperate flame section of the forums the way we have general and bug reports and to remove posts that hijack threads to bash and flame, or go completly off topic on the sole purpose to bash or flame. It would be similar to the match up forums, and possibly not showed on the main page due to search engines indexing the flames but thats something else entirely.

Both are examples of flames and using a logical unbiased conclusion (I think we're all able to do that) this would be a widely accepted solution.

What do you think?

Its a better solution than simply eliminating flames, however, I personally feel offtopic flaming should be cracked down on, like, moderators have the ability to split out parts of topics, so if someone starts going offtopic, the moderator has a few choices, split the topic, delete the offtopic/flaming thread, or ignoring it. Unless I missed some? ... Like, if you examine the threads I typically lock, I lock them becuase of offtopic flaming ususally. If someone wants to say I'm a annoying unintelligent hack, they are welcome to start a new topic and discuss it till their faces turn blue. However, doing that sort of thing in a thread that was about something else entirely(disccussing valid issues relating to bolo). I don't like. As I mentioned hood, I'm looking forward to reading what you come up with.

On another note however, Elvis isn't really around to create new forums, so you may wish to consider this when composing your idea's. If it involves creation of forums, It may not occur. For example, our current policy suggested creating a moderator forum that we could vote on naughty threads in. Well .... this was never created to my knowledge (I havn't checked in a long time though) ...

Min

Min wrote:

Keep in mind that the certain people I'm refering to also vowed to never post on the forums again if the suggested changes I wrote had taken full effect. Min

Well aw gee, wouldn't that be a shame.

Does anyone believe there can be unbiased locking, deleting and enforcement of the policy? Not if the moderator acting is any part of the conversation. I believe if that’s the case the mod should ask another mod to review it and do what they deem appropriate.

I believe we should first ask for volunteers for moderators and then setup several polls to narrow it down to three new mods.

It stands to reason, if a community vote is good enough to decide policy then it’s good enough to decide new mods.

Dibs.

long live new mods!

I think we're all forgetting the size of our community. We've got what, 40 people maybe? ... and we get what, one post a day? While personally I agree with lrl about the unbiased bit. But the real question is, who cares if a person biased makes a move to delete a post? .... this isn't a judicial system were someone will go to jail for 10 years if a biased decision is made. Its a internet forum. I can't stress how irrelevant it is. And, making new moderators involves elvis's interaction. So umm, ask him if he'll make some new mods if the community votes them in? .... Keep in mind that in a vote of this nature, its going to be a popularity contest. Whoever the most popular people are will get in. Deciding new policy isn't based on how well liked the person posting it is.

Min

Initially I was suggesting we move spam and flame posts off the front page. I don't think we'll need to write up a fifty page document detailing exactly how to do that. I honestly believe that adding the following line to the policy will solve this:
Moderators are allowed to move objectionable content off the front page and into a speficied forum marked for such material.

My suggestion for "objectional content" (feel free to change that to a more suiting description) would be: posts and threads that are created merely to flame another player and those that go completly off topic or hijack the thread. These posts will stay on WBN, but placed to a non-front page flame-only forum.

As for voting in general, I raise the question that if a single moderator can't decide a topic or post objectionable, why have that moderator? Same with IRC - if an op can't decide to enforce an action using his own judgement, he shouldn't be patrolling IRC, correct?

Min wrote:

I think we're all forgetting the size of our community. We've got what, 40 people maybe? ... and we get what, one post a day? While personally I agree with lrl about the unbiased bit. But the real question is, who cares if a person biased makes a move to delete a post? .... this isn't a judicial system were someone will go to jail for 10 years if a biased decision is made. Its a internet forum. I can't stress how irrelevant it is. And, making new moderators involves elvis's interaction. So umm, ask him if he'll make some new mods if the community votes them in? .... Keep in mind that in a vote of this nature, its going to be a popularity contest. Whoever the most popular people are will get in. Deciding new policy isn't based on how well liked the person posting it is.

Min

The current “policy” states to unlock threads based on a vote of the mods. What mods? There’s only one that does anything and that’s you, min. As you’ve stated yourself, ‘you don’t care’. I think we need at least two more people who do care. It pains me to say this, but I agree the policy needs … some work… Really, someone who is popular may be alright. No one should have any problems with them, right?

jhood wrote:

Initially I was suggesting we move spam and flame posts off the front page. I don't think we'll need to write up a fifty page document detailing exactly how to do that. I honestly believe that adding the following line to the policy will solve this:
Moderators are allowed to move objectionable content off the front page and into a speficied forum marked for such material.

My suggestion for "objectional content" (feel free to change that to a more suiting description) would be: posts and threads that are created merely to flame another player and those that go completly off topic or hijack the thread. These posts will stay on WBN, but placed to a non-front page flame-only forum.

Objectionable content… What is that? Perspective man, there’s absolutely nothing more complicated than perspective. I’d try; “Moderators are allowed to move posts and threads off the front page and into a specified forum if they were created to flame another player, go completely off topic, hijack the thread, or advertisements.”

Why have the moderators vote to unlock a topic? I never said a moderator couldn’t decide; only they shouldn’t have a conflict in doing so.

jhood wrote:

As for voting in general, I raise the question that if a single moderator can't decide a topic or post objectionable, why have that moderator? Same with IRC - if an op can't decide to enforce an action using his own judgement, he shouldn't be patrolling IRC, correct?

IRC in no way resembles this, ops patrol the channel and the admins supervise the ops. Elvis clearly isn’t going to supervise the moderators.

I disagree.

LRL wrote:

The current “policy” states to unlock threads based on a vote of the mods. What mods? There’s only one that does anything and that’s you, min. As you’ve stated yourself, ‘you don’t care’. I think we need at least two more people who do care. It pains me to say this, but I agree the policy needs … some work… Really, someone who is popular may be alright. No one should have any problems with them, right?

The policy also states that there would be a hidden moderator forum for moving offending posts too..... There isn't one .....

Ya, I don't care lrl, but strangely enough, I'm still here, and I'm still moderating the forums when its required. Best part about not caring is .... I'm not biased about it..... unbiased moderation, wow, amazing. Isn't that what you want?

I've also yet to have anyone complain about any threads I've locked recent besides zzz, but he's just a moron. If any 3 people in irc say I should unlock a thread that I've locked. It will be unlocked. Typically these days I get 3 people to say weither I should lock a thread in the first place. In the case of the bunch of junk I moved recently, I had 3 people say I should. Good enough. Any complaints? .... I can move it all back if you like, I don't care either way ..... hey theres that not caring again.

LRL wrote:

IRC in no way resembles this, ops patrol the channel and the admins supervise the ops. Elvis clearly isn’t going to supervise the moderators.

All I have to say to this is ... who watchs the watchers? .... if you misbehave, how are you accountable? .... the truth is ... your not, period. Your the ultimate 'god' of irc currently, your not accountable, you also don't give a rats ass about any of it. So, who supervises you? .... What have the moderators done to require supervision? ... I've done nothing but follow the policy since it was implemented. Feel free to dig through your cache to try and prove otherwise. You have this problem with believing anything I say to you be it truth or otherwise. The purpose of this post was to add bits to the policy to allow me to deal with the garbage people have been posting lately. Not to call into question previous moderator action. But almost garunteed your going to bring up shit you can't prove from 4 years ago. And I'm just going to ignore you. I don't have time for this shit anymore.

Min

Killjoy is a mod, and he is obviously active :p I have never ever seen a forum where users get to vote on new mods, that is stupid ass suggestion. This is not a democracy. Internal voting and oversight is ubsurd for a forum of this size. You should express your appreciation for the time Min spends on this. He has been more lax then any mod ive seen where he will unlock if a bunch of people complain, like he said. So quit yer bitchin and go back to your hole.

The bickering is pointless. Take a policy from a large, well-operated channel/server and transpose it here, 'cause these folks will never agree on anything. Imagine the time and effort that'll save.

To min, Nemo and whoever else seems to hate LRL: No one cares. He's not going anywhere. The whole thing is old; it's childish. Move on or move yourselves on.

I bet CF will have something to say to Acro's post :-P

Acro wrote:

The bickering is pointless. Take a policy from a large, well-operated channel/server and transpose it here, 'cause these folks will never agree on anything. Imagine the time and effort that'll save.

do you honestly believe your the first to suggest this pretty obvious solution? ... Last time we tried this, we ended up with 20+ pages of flamewar with nothing being decided.

Acro wrote:

To min, Nemo and whoever else seems to hate LRL: No one cares. He's not going anywhere. The whole thing is old; it's childish. Move on or move yourselves on.

Noone cares? .. what? .. about lrl's behavioral problems? about the size of your penis? ... what? ... you don't care that I dislike lrl? .. well, since you don't care, you won't care to know I don't dislike lrl. What 'whole' thing are you refering to? ... move on? .. move what on? .... get your head out of your ass acro. And start speaking in english instead of vague references.

Min

Min wrote:

do you honestly believe your the first to suggest this pretty obvious solution?

Whatever policy exists now isn't followed, thus talking about a new policy is pointless until there is management by someone intelligent. I can't see anyone with any skill in management wanting to volunteer their time for this stale game.