BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Indirik on August 29, 2013, 04:25:59 AM
-
The forum mods have put together a proposed new set of forum roles. We are posting them here for comment, prior to releasing them as an official set.
We have decided to keep them short and simple, rather than add lots of extra rules and exceptions that might make things more difficult to comply with, or that may open holes for rules lawyers.
1) Don't be an !@#$%^&. No insulting or derogatory behavior toward other players or forum users.
2) The moderation staff has the right to remove any messages that it considers insulting, inflammatory, or inappropriate, at their discretion and without warning. The moderation staff also has the right to modify posted messages to remove offensive or inappropriate content. Posts that quote deleted posts may also be summarily deleted.
3) The forums are not a replacement for in-game discussion. The forum is for discussing things about the game, not for things that should be better discussed in the game.
4) No posting of in-game messages on the forum, with the following two exceptions.
- You may post Roleplay messages you wrote and sent in-game, on the Roleplay board. You may not post messages for someone else, with or without their permission. You may post the RPd death of your character on the Roleplay boards without sending it IG, since you can't post it IG once they're dead.
- IC/IG messages may be posted as part of a Magistrates case, only in the appropriate case thread on the Courthouse/Cases board
When discussing these rules, or proposed changes, please keep the discussion on-topic and civil. If you wish to propose new rules, please try to present them as they would appear. Keep them as simple as possible, and to the point.
-
If your goal is to foster a respectful, friendly atmosphere, starting with "Don't be an !@#$%^&" is counter-productive. Also try using positive tense whenever possible, and less wordy. E.g.
1. Be respectful of other users.
2. The moderators have complete editorial control and may delete or modify postings that go against these rules.
3. The forum is for discussing things about the game. In-game matters should only be discussed in the game. Players may post the RPd death of their character on the Roleplay boards without sending it IG, since they can't post it IG once they're dead.
4. Refrain from posting IG messages other than your own Roleplays to the Roleplay board, except where appropriate as part of a magistrate case, or as allowed under Rule 3.
-
If your goal is to foster a respectful, friendly atmosphere, starting with "Don't be an !@#$%^&" is counter-productive.
I was thinking of how to say this same thing... But was also considering the age level we're promoting in the game as far as "!@#$%^&" goes.
-
I was thinking of how to say this same thing... But was also considering the age level we're promoting in the game as far as "!@#$%^&" goes.
BattleMaster has always been very much PG-13, at least.
Expecting people not to use words like that in the game and the community around it "for the chiiiiiildren" is not really a particularly helpful attitude.
-
those 4 rules are good. the don't be an !@#$%^& is really good. The reason why is make sure people know that the forums are being watched and the tolerance level will be low. Its a strong statement and that is what is most important.
-
BattleMaster has always been very much PG-13, at least.
Expecting people not to use words like that in the game and the community around it "for the chiiiiiildren" is not really a particularly helpful attitude.
I don't have a problem with the word '!@#$%^&' per se, or with swear words in general, but "Don't be an !@#$%^&" is an !@#$%^& thing to say.
those 4 rules are good. the don't be an !@#$%^& is really good. The reason why is make sure people know that the forums are being watched and the tolerance level will be low. Its a strong statement and that is what is most important.
I really don't get this supposed need for more authoritarian controls. According to Tom, only 2 or 3 postings per month get reported. Personally I've never felt the need to report anything. Yes, sometimes people are bitchy and sarcastic and combative and unpleasant. Get over it.
-
We have had a bit of an upswing on the reported posts, which is good, in a sense. It means that people are taking the time to report issues that come up, rather than just ignore them, or respond to them.
As far as the rules go, yes it is a swear word. But I think it really summarizes things pretty well. If there is a very strong opinion against it, then we could change it, I suppose. It is a bit rude, but that bit of rudeness itself kind of adds to the no-nonsense aspect of it.
-
The opening sets the tone and what that opening suggests is crude and tactless. Start instead with something important and firm, then head forward with a subtle joke to show that although you're a firm boss you're not an uncaring tyrant, then go back to standard firm stuff, then end with "P.S. don't be an !@#$%^&," if you're really intent on including that line.
Or just copy whatever rules Google or some other big company has. They probably spent ten million dollars developing theirs, so it's probably good!
-
We have had a bit of an upswing on the reported posts, which is good, in a sense. It means that people are taking the time to report issues that come up, rather than just ignore them, or respond to them.
As far as the rules go, yes it is a swear word. But I think it really summarizes things pretty well. If there is a very strong opinion against it, then we could change it, I suppose. It is a bit rude, but that bit of rudeness itself kind of adds to the no-nonsense aspect of it.
I think it's hard to maintain the spirit of "playing a game with friends" with a militant no-nonsense policy. If you want to encourage dialogue and fun, you have to give people some breathing room, and a consequence of that is you might have to tolerate some nonsense.
-
I think it's hard to maintain the spirit of "playing a game with friends" with a militant no-nonsense policy. If you want to encourage dialogue and fun, you have to give people some breathing room, and a consequence of that is you might have to tolerate some nonsense.
I was referring to the no-nonsense aspect of the rules. I'm fine with some nonsense on the part of the forum participants. We don't have a rule against it, nor against being silly, or having fun. I personally am very lenient about lots of behavior that some of the other forum mods don't like. It's not like I'm not the perpetrator of some silly one-liners or off-color jokes.
-
Or just copy whatever rules Google or some other big company has. They probably spent ten million dollars developing theirs, so it's probably good!
Isn't Google's tag line something like "Don't be evil" or something?
-
The opening sets the tone and what that opening suggests is crude and tactless. Start instead with something important and firm, then head forward with a subtle joke to show that although you're a firm boss you're not an uncaring tyrant, then go back to standard firm stuff, then end with "P.S. don't be an !@#$%^&," if you're really intent on including that line.
Or just copy whatever rules Google or some other big company has. They probably spent ten million dollars developing theirs, so it's probably good!
Considering the chain of events thus far, I don't think that being direct is a problem. Some people apparently really hate the forum. Therefore, using direct language to state what won't be tolerated seems like a good plan. I mean, if the Mods are going to be strict they might as well set that expectation right off the bat and not try to stick any frills on it. Some people might find that reassuring.
Look, no matter what the rules say, someone is inevitably going to get pissed at the Mods and accuse them of being unfair, tyrants, etc.. It happened with the Titans, it happened with the Magistrates, and it will happen with the Mods too eventually. Such is the curse of power. There will always be someone who is unhappy. You might as well just be clear that there will be no nonsense, and then no one can claim that you weren't honest about how strict you were going to be.
-
Considering the chain of events thus far, I don't think that being direct is a problem. Some people apparently really hate the forum. Therefore, using direct language to state what won't be tolerated seems like a good plan. I mean, if the Mods are going to be strict they might as well set that expectation right off the bat and not try to stick any frills on it. Some people might find that reassuring.
Look, no matter what the rules say, someone is inevitably going to get pissed at the Mods and accuse them of being unfair, tyrants, etc.. It happened with the Titans, it happened with the Magistrates, and it will happen with the Mods too eventually. Such is the curse of power. There will always be someone who is unhappy. You might as well just be clear that there will be no nonsense, and then no one can claim that you weren't honest about how strict you were going to be.
Personally I find the authoritarian tone more off-putting than the occasional dickish comments that I read. We're adults playing a game among peers, not kids being supervised by the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket.
-
Personally I find the authoritarian tone more off-putting than the occasional dickish comments that I read. We're adults playing a game among peers, not kids being supervised by the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket.
I agree completely, but apparently some people are unable to keep things in perspective, hence why we're having this whole discussion about the forum and better moderation in the first place.
That said, I'm not really arguing that "Don't be an !@#$%^&" is hands down the best way to write that rule, but I don't have the same problem with it that you do. It would not bother me to see it changed.
-
Keep the direct tone.
But do change it into positive, I agree with that comment. Tell people what to do, not what not. It's a fairly simple change - just say "do x" instead of "don't do !x" - but it has a strong effect.
-
But do change it into positive, I agree with that comment. Tell people what to do, not what not. It's a fairly simple change - just say "do x" instead of "don't do !x" - but it has a strong effect.
So, e.g., change it to:
1) Be nice to people. No insulting or derogatory behavior toward other players or forum users.
-
So, e.g., change it to:
1) Be nice to people. No insulting or derogatory behavior toward other players or forum users.
The second sentence is unnecessary.
-
The second sentence is unnecessary.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
But no. No, it's not.
-
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
But no. No, it's not.
They essentially mean the same thing. If you comply with the first sentence, you'll naturally be in compliance with the second sentence.
-
Having it as extra reinforcement is a good thing. Besides, a forum rule of "Be nice" just sounds silly. Like we're begging.
While we are trying to keep the rules simple, we're not trying to achieve the absolute lowest character count possible. A little bit of redundancy and/or clarification is not out of the question.
-
If someone is an !@#$%^&, they can argue "there's no law saying that I can't be an !@#$%^&".
Or, to put it another way, there's a good reason why the law says "thou shalt not murder". It's a more powerful statement, and more specific, than saying "can't we all get along?"
-
If someone is an !@#$%^&, they can argue "there's no law saying that I can't be an !@#$%^&".
Or, to put it another way, there's a good reason why the law says "thou shalt not murder". It's a more powerful statement, and more specific, than saying "can't we all get along?"
You know, there's also no specific forum rule about hacking into a players account and posting for them, though I'm sure that'll get you a ban from the forum as well should you get caught.
-
Ya gotta love the rules lawyers. :p
-
Can we get back to a constructive discussion, everyone?
There are two equally valid arguments. Positive wording is better if you want to get people's cooperation. Listing what is forbidden is easier and clearer.
All we need to do is find the correct mix, which parts are better worded with positive phrases and which with proscriptions.
-
!@#$%^&s will be !@#$%^&s regardless of what the rules say, therefore it's more important to lead by example or, as Gandhi would say, "be the change you want to see in the forum. You'll never eliminate dickishness completely, but generally people will take their cues from others, especially from the mods, the devs, and the boss man. If the rules are written in a hostile tone, people will instinctively get defensive and hostile too. If the rules are written in pseudo-legalese, people will instinctively become lawyers and look for loopholes. But if you address people in a friendly, respectful manner, it becomes harder for them to be an !@#$%^& to you." (he had amazing foresight) Anyway, here's what I propose:
1. Be respectful of other users.
2. The moderators have complete editorial control and may delete or modify postings that go against these rules.
3. The forum is for discussing things about the game. In-game matters should only be discussed in the game. Players may post the RPd death of their character on the Roleplay boards without sending it IG, since they can't post it IG once they're dead.
4. Refrain from posting IG messages other than your own Roleplays to the Roleplay board, except where appropriate as part of a magistrate case, or as allowed under Rule 3.
-
If someone is an !@#$%^&, they can argue "there's no law saying that I can't be an !@#$%^&".
And that's why you just slap them with moderator action (there is supposed to be no initial defense against mods) and call it precedent. Eventually, people will get the picture or continue getting increasing punishments.
I think we all have a fairly similar idea of what we want to accomplish with these rules, it shouldn't be too difficult to stay fairly close to the same thresholds of enforcement.
-
There's also a long-standing BM rule that rules-lawyers weasling their way around the rules with convulted arguments about how a clear and obvious violation of a rule can be interpreted as not actually being in violation will get the harshest punishments.
The IR page on the wiki even lists that rule explicitly.
-
I think the rules are good. Please delete the word !@#$%^&.
Seriosuly, nobody wants to play a game where rules are written by plebeian rednecks.
I would though add as well a list of possible punishments.
For first offense, repeated offense etc.
Just so people know what they can expect and no discussions afterwards about verdicts start.
-
Make the rules simple enough that anyone can remember them after one read, then post violating messages on a new board called "Rogue's Gallery" along with how they were resolved, e.g. Mod deleted the post, Mod removed offending language, User was asked to modify the post, User was suspended for egregious violation, User was banned for repeated egregious violations, etc. That way people can objectively see what the boundaries are. Simplicity and clarity.
-
Buffalkill had some good points, and his rewrite of the rules is generally a good one. I have taken it and reworded it a bot more. Yes there are a couple spots where it may be redundant, but restating things using different words is not always a bad idea.
1. Be respectful of other users. No insulting or derogatory behavior toward other players or forum users.
2. The moderators have complete editorial control and may delete or modify posts that violate these rules, or are judged inappropriate for the forum.
3. The forum is for discussing things about the game. In-game matters should only be discussed in the game.
4. Do not post in-game messages on the forum, other than posting your own Roleplays on the Roleplay board, or when appropriate as part of a Magistrate case. Players may post the roleplayed death of their character on the Roleplay boards without sending it in-game, since they cannot post it in-game.
I don't feel that a list of possible punishments is appropriate. The actions taken will depend on the nature of the rule-breaking. I don't want someone to start bitching because we slapped him with 20 points instead of only 10.
-
then post violating messages on a new board called "Rogue's Gallery" along with how they were resolved,
Not going to happen. That amount of overhead would be the end of volunteer moderators.
-
I still think #3 and #4 can be merged with a good wording. Something about IC and OOC seperation and that the forum is ALWAYS OOC. You can remove the part about the Magistrates, btw.
-
The actions taken will depend on the nature of the rule-breaking. I don't want someone to start bitching because we slapped him with 20 points instead of only 10.
This way it will though make it more difficult for the volunteer moderators to handle things, as they must always discuss verdicts and then justify them and then there is whining and then and then and then...endless food for rules lawyers.
If this should be enforced fast, effective and since we want to make people do not bad things at all, then you have to provide also the punishments.
For the sake of the mental health and time management of the moderators and of course also as deterrence for any possible offenders.
You simply don't discuss about 20 or 10 points. There is the rule. There is the punishment. You break the rule, you face the appropriate punishment.
-
This way it will though make it more difficult for the volunteer moderators to handle things, as they must always discuss verdicts and then justify them and then there is whining and then and then and then...endless food for rules lawyers.
No one said there wouldn't be guidelines for the moderators.
But there will not be anywhere you can look to see, "Oh, if I go and call someone a slimy !@#$head, I'll only get a warning and 10 points! It's been long enough since the last time I mouthed off on the forum, I can do that and not have any problems!"
No. The moderators will have broad discretion, particularly to deal with people who would like to be rules lawyers. So someone like the above hypothetical jerk would not just get 10 points if he was known to be a serial offender; he'd get quite a bit more than that. And if he kept it up—trying deliberately to avoid more serious punishments by carefully doling out his venom and vitriol—he'd start finding himself hitting bigger and bigger warnings for the same infractions.
What you suggest would not reduce the "food for rules lawyers," Atanamir, it would be a buffet for them.
-
Well, I don't know what guidelines you have in mind and what is meant with those points but the punishments should be harsh, really harsh, IMO.
Only that works, unfortunately.
Like:
1st offense - warning, 1 day forum ban
2nd offense - 1 week forum ban
3rd offense - 1 month forum ban
4th offense - Lifetime forum ban
I think that kind of punishment would be the best deterrence to not break the rules at all.
Show me one person which will do it more than one time...
-
This way it will though make it more difficult for the volunteer moderators to handle things, as they must always discuss verdicts and then justify them and then there is whining and then and then and then...endless food for rules lawyers.
Errr... no?
This is a forum, not a court of law. If a moderator deems a posting breaks the rules, he will moderate it and add warning points to the user who posted it. Once said user has accumulated enough warning points, he can no longer post for a while.
No discussion, no verdicts, no justifications and no rules lawyers.
The forum already has all these systems built-in. We are NOT going to invent even more new rules on how to handle crap.
-
+1 What Tom says. Just look at other forums.
-
This way it will though make it more difficult for the volunteer moderators to handle things, as they must always discuss verdicts and then justify them and then there is whining and then and then and then...endless food for rules lawyers.
As Tom says, there are no verdicts. There is no discussion of verdicts. There is no justification or arguing. No one who has a moderator action taken against them will even know who did it, unless the moderator reveals their name in the process of taking the action. If anyone has issues with the moderator's actions, they can protest to Tom. Or, as some have done in the past, to me or Tim.
We keep this nice and simple. Action gets taken faster, and stuff gets dealt with quickly.
-
Not going to happen. That amount of overhead would be the end of volunteer moderators.
No way. The Mod Squad would love it. I know you think it'd give users one more thing to argue about, but it won't. It will get more users to be on the same page as the mods. It will actually pre-empt more arguments if they can go to the case history and see with their own eyes that they're being treated the same as anyone else under those circumstances, and the mods would still be free to create a new precedent whenever the situation called for it. Also, it will discourage the "rules lawyers" from thinking they can find loopholes, because they'll see with their own eyes the mods' broad discretionary authority.
As a side note, it has the added appeal of being deeply rooted in medieval common law, which we all can appreciate.
-
No way. The Mod Squad would love it.
Given that a significant percentage of the "Mod Squad" has been posting on this thread, agreeing with Tom's smackdowns of every attempt to lengthen the list of rules and amount of time they'll have to spend moderating...I really don't know where you think you're getting this idea.
It's not going to happen, and please don't presume to speak for other people—particularly those who are already speaking for themselves.
-
agreeing with Tom's smackdowns of every attempt to lengthen the list of rules and amount of time they'll have to spend moderating...
Then I didn't explain it well, because every suggestion I've made has been to shorten the rules and make the moderators' task easier.
I really don't know where you think you're getting this idea.
I worked on implementing something similar at my job about 7 years ago and it's been very effective.
and please don't presume to speak for other people—particularly those who are already speaking for themselves.
The reason I don't preface every comment with "In my opinion..." is that anybody reading it knows whose opinion it is. Everybody here speaks for themselves. I was just making a suggestion.
-
It is an intriguing suggestion, but I don't think that I would enjoy the extra workload. I know that I'm not the only mod with limited time to spare.
Also, I would not want to enshrine the vitriol and insults in a Hall of Fame.
As far as rules lawyers go, I find that nothing discourages them fatser than a quick smackdown and refusal to debate the rules. Providing examples is like throwing gasoline on a fire.
-
As far as rules lawyers go, I find that nothing discourages them fatser than a quick smackdown and refusal to debate the rules. Providing examples is like throwing gasoline on a fire.
I believe this is implied, but to those who aren't seeing it, it may put them at ease: I'm sure any and all forum posts complaining about punishment will simply be deleted and the offender punished, perhaps more harshly than before.
Really, despite the recent fracas, running a forum isn't super difficult. The challenges stem from volume and anonymity rather than vague rules or rule lawyering. In no uncertain terms, it is Tom's forum; if you aren't playing by his rules... guess what? You aren't playing at all. (It's also a forum; it's not supposed to have a crushing impact on anything... If you get booted, it's not really a big deal unless you make it so. In that case, you should be reassessing your priorities... or banned again because it'll keep happening.)
All that said, I don't think it'd be bad for the mods to have a private way to communicate what they did, though a repository is too much. Maybe somewhere for a mod to say, "hey guys, I don't know what to do..." and another to respond. It'll build up like the forum already has.
-
All that said, I don't think it'd be bad for the mods to have a private way to communicate what they did, though a repository is too much. Maybe somewhere for a mod to say, "hey guys, I don't know what to do..." and another to respond. It'll build up like the forum already has.
SMF thought so too so its built into the moderation system with all reported posts, and if a moderator is questioning and wants to ask other moderators he/she can just report it with their comment for the other moderators to talk about.
-
SMF thought so too so its built into the moderation system with all reported posts, and if a moderator is questioning and wants to ask other moderators he/she can just report it with their comment for the other moderators to talk about.
SMF?
Either way, cool. Problem solved, imo.
-
SMF?
Either way, cool. Problem solved, imo.
SMF (Simple Machines Forums) is the forum design/software/whatever we use. If you scroll to the bottom of the page you will notice it says SMF 2.0.5
-
No way. The Mod Squad would love it.
No, the rules-lawyers would love it.
99% of the players of this game never get involved with the moderators or the Titans/Magistrates, at least not directly. That's why some rather biased players have been so successful in smearing their names - because few people have personal experiences.
And the absolute last thing I want is regular players turning into lawyers because they think they need to read through 50 precedents in order to feel comfortable posting their thoughts.
-
I believe this is implied, but to those who aren't seeing it, it may put them at ease: I'm sure any and all forum posts complaining about punishment will simply be deleted and the offender punished, perhaps more harshly than before.
Like all things, it depends on how and where you do it.
Derailing a topic with whining about some mod action? Definitely worthy a deleted post and another warning.
Opening a new topic, in the appropriate sub-forum, with a calm and reasonable argument? That's the way to do it.
-
Opening a new topic, in the appropriate sub-forum, with a calm and reasonable argument? That's the way to do it.
Will there be such a forum? I suppose it could just be a dual purpose of the Courthouse Q&A.
-
Will there be such a forum?
There already is:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/board,12.0.html
-
There already is:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/board,12.0.html
Oh hey!
-
1. Be respectful of other users. No insulting or derogatory behavior toward other players or forum users.
2. The forum is for discussing things about the game. In-game matters should only be discussed in the game. Do not post in-game messages on the forum, other than posting your own Roleplays on the Roleplay board, or when appropriate as part of a Magistrate case. Players may post the roleplayed death of their character on the Roleplay boards without sending it in-game, since they cannot post it in-game.
3. The moderators have complete editorial control and may delete or modify posts that violate these rules, or are judged inappropriate for the forum.
So...back on track, is this the set of rules we are going with? Really, only the first 2 are rules, the last point is more of an informational point.
-
Looks good to me.
-
Looks good to me.
If it's good enough for that fine gentleman, then it's good enough for me.
Just open the forums already. Trying to control public opinion and perception is like herding cats. None of your plans will survive contact with the player base, and you will never get it right.
-
If it's good enough for that fine gentleman, then it's good enough for me.
Just open the forums already. Trying to control public opinion and perception is like herding cats. None of your plans will survive contact with the player base, and you will never get it right.
We have a server move as the #1 priority right now, everything else comes after that.