Let's Talk

Public discussion of the forum software and other things run by Zandronum staff.
Metal
Forum Regular
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:18 am
Location: Canada

RE: Let's Talk

#41

Post by Metal » Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:39 pm

I would like to clarify on the mobius ban.

The night before last, there was some discussion in the pro channel. This discussion somehow derailed toward posting pictures of people on the channel and ridiculing them. I was one of those people, as well as Nati, and a few others (So I've heard, I had left for work at this point so wasn't sure). It became pretty personal as he was posting these things in a channel that was far from private.

Was he banned from the channel first? Yes, his hostmask was still in the #pro banlist from a previous incident. I had thought someone unbanned him. But it turns out he was evading the ban and he was still on the banlist when I checked after the problem occured.

As stated in our IRC Rules
Be respectful of those around you. Abuse is not tolerated, and is dealt with sternly.
Mobius has broken this rule on multiple occasions all across the IRC network and has been warned many times for his behavior and for evading channel bans.
<EazyDI>harrased me
<EazyDI>and called me a dinner
<EazyDI>n*****
<EazyDI>lmao not dinner

Lollipop
Zandrone
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Denmark

RE: Let's Talk

#42

Post by Lollipop » Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:54 pm

Spoiler: Disclaimer: nothing bad intended, please make sure you do not misread it. (Open)
I actually thought Decay would be banned for the post too when I read it, it just seemed obvious to me.
The following text is not oriented against all admins. (I won't give names, drama hungering bananas)
The way I see it is that if some admins got to the topic before anyone saw it, then they would trash it, but now they will just have to play along.
I see some instances from time to time that are just horrible, though I won't list them here as it would be nothing but drama bait and not contribute anything to the matter at all. But fact is that some admins just do shit, just like Sarge, just a bit more "under the rug".

Questions remain though:
Why doesn't Decay's post about Sarge say he got warned for it? The usual is that the post show that it have done something wrong and other can learn from that and not post similarily.

Why do admins bias their views on the people? An example as follows:
Person A post something of rellevance.
Person B post something hostile/agitating or similar because of that post.
Person C report the post and get warned himself because he is an idiot.
The admin was so corrupted by hes relation to person B that he make up an excuse to give player C a warning.
AN EXAMPLE, DON'T FLAME GUYS.

How I think the moderators should be elected:
There is made a thread where they can announce they want to be moderators, and a following thread will be a poll where people can vote. Similar to SunS and other.

And now to those I vote for:
Jenova - He is obvious.
Mifu - I find him obvious, he actually give a fuck about those he communicate with.
Legion - I haven't seen much of hes work, but what I actually have seen is good and un-biased.

All the staff should be active though, it should be a requirement for being a staff member, unless it's for a short duration.
Spoiler: Not that related sidenote (Open)
When admins give a warning, they send a PM with "you have recived a warning".
This is perfectly fine, but I have yet to see these PM's actually tell what rule you have broken and why they think so and how you can avoid doing so again. That should be pretty standard, unless it is with people who are known not to give a damn anyway (moderator must judge that), or if their time is short (should be marked).

User avatar
Nati46
Forum Regular
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Ramat Aviv

RE: Let's Talk

#43

Post by Nati46 » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:27 pm

Metal wrote: I would like to clarify on the mobius ban.

The night before last, there was some discussion in the pro channel. This discussion somehow derailed toward posting pictures of people on the channel and ridiculing them. I was one of those people, as well as Nati, and a few others (So I've heard, I had left for work at this point so wasn't sure). It became pretty personal as he was posting these things in a channel that was far from private.

Was he banned from the channel first? Yes, his hostmask was still in the #pro banlist from a previous incident. I had thought someone unbanned him. But it turns out he was evading the ban and he was still on the banlist when I checked after the problem occured.

As stated in our IRC Rules
Be respectful of those around you. Abuse is not tolerated, and is dealt with sternly.
Mobius has broken this rule on multiple occasions all across the IRC network and has been warned many times for his behavior and for evading channel bans.
And the worse part of this is that a staff member had also taken part in the trolling. That came as a surprise to me honestly.
Want to know how to run faster? Check this out!

Zandronum Duel Championships

Image

User avatar
Dark-Assassin
Maintenence Crew
Posts: 962
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:25 am

RE: Let's Talk

#44

Post by Dark-Assassin » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:31 pm

Decay wrote:Dissident administration is also demoted or removed from staff. I have been witness to several instances of this.
I'll be honest and can actually agree to this. I've seen it before, and experienced it as well.
But I am sure in my case it's not just that alone. There were times I screwed up, I admit that, but I don't think having everything you worked for stripped from you for it is a good way to deal with it.
I am not complaining now, I have found other ways to occupy my spare time, and without the headache of dealing with, even if mostly, a drama filled community. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like it back.


I also agree with Lollipop's post.



Edit: Was too blunt and missed a lot of details on this post. I am sorry.
See: http://zandronum.com/forum/showthread.p ... 7#pid46437
Last edited by Dark-Assassin on Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ruin
Forum Regular
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: The auto-parts store
Contact:

RE: Let's Talk

#45

Post by Ruin » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:51 pm

Spoiler: stuff (Open)
Spottswoode wrote:
Ruin wrote:
Spottswoode wrote:
So I'm going to suggest two things at minimum:
1. Establishment of an appeals system. Bans and other forms of punishments on longer scales (in excess of one week) be publicly analyzed by the staff, appeals be given and publicly posted and reviewed, and that these appeals be given recurringly. The staff should then make future decisions in a stare decisis format based on previous bans. It won't be perfect, but you will be able to directly draw a basis and reasoning for a certain punishment as well as a basis for appealling your bans.
2. Rules and rule violations given out should be spelled out entirely with subsequent punishments and reasoning. The point is not so much to kill interpretation by admins as it is to give players a clear and concise detailing of expected rules that can be readily viewed. This will also help prevent admin abuse.
Now, we don't have to bog ourselves down into a bureaucracy with endless rules but we should have the capacity to engage and contest the rules and the rulemakers in a fair and open manner.

I think something like this was tried once. I don't remember it going too well. I think it went along the lines of posting the reason person X was banned, people were allowed to comment in that thread and say if the ban was justified based on the evidence provided. Though if my memory serves me well, some of the ban appeal posts were heavily biased based on the user's popularity within the community.

I do believe our rules and violations when it comes to the servers has a pretty straight forward punishment time frame (impersonation being 3 months, cheating being a year ban, etc). Perhaps they could be elaborated upon?

I do know the forums come down to moderator discretion. Which is something that is harder to tackle, as each moderator may have a different mindset as to what is punishable and what is not. Personally, I'm pretty lenient and don't hand out warnings often. For example, I don't care if people want to use just an image as a response. As long as it gets the message across. Though some others may be a bit on the stricter side of the moderation fence.
No, what was created then was actually an open jury system. Any time you open punishment to the court of public opinion you get a kangaroo court. What I'm suggesting is a closed appeals setting where the punished user has the right to address the administration with grievances, errors, or apologies as the case may warrant. In this case, the administration would make a thread containing the record of the ban. The system would work like this:
The ban thread would be created. It would contain all records pertinent to the incident. A lengthy explanation would not be required, and earlier cases could be cited where a lengthy one may be warranted with an attached explanation on how it applies to this case. The admin who issued the ban or the order to ban would create the thread and provide the reasoning. Users would not be allowed to post in this thread.
After a predefined period, the punished user would be allowed to make a request to appeal his punishment. Once a week, the user can have his appeal request processed. If the us, er keeps spamming his request, it will be ignored by default. The point here is to require the user to conform to a set of rules in order to show a) he/she is actually apologetic or b) he/she is capable of an orderly process and can keep from acting like a complete asshat all the time.
If the request is accepted, by the administration, the user will be allowed to make one post in that thread and have at least one person, of their choice, post on their behalf or in their defense. (I will personally volunteer many times for the latter.) The admin who made the thread can also make a post and have an equal number of people comment of their choice. The rest of the administration would also be allowed to comment, but it is not required of them.  This has several purposes: 
1. It allows the banned user a chance to be heard, particularly if he/she has a legitimate grievance. The user is also able to have someone come to their defense in this case. 
2. It gives the staff an open place to have their thoughts shared on the rules and procedure. You guys will be pleasantly surprised how offering your thoughts to the public on a poor policy can make a difference. Dissent is openly encouraged and visible here. 
3. It allows the public to be critical of policy without having a direct exertion over it.
If the appeal is succesful, as decided by the staff (however you guys wanna do it), the user has his sentence reduced/removed as dictated by the staff.
If the appeal fails to  meet expectations, the banned user must wait a predefined period of time. Once again, the idea is to make user prove they can follow some general rules.
I quite like this suggestion. I wouldn't mind implementing something like this.
Nati46 wrote: And the worse part of this is that a staff member had also taken part in the trolling. That came as a surprise to me honestly.
Oh really?
Last edited by Ruin on Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Secondly, <PRO> is utter shit, and they're only "known" because almost all of them are also staff." - /vr/

User avatar
infurnus
Forum Staff
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:40 pm
Location: Dusty SEGA Tapes
Clan: Unidoom
Clan Tag: UD
Contact:

RE: Let's Talk

#46

Post by infurnus » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:58 pm

Lollipop wrote: I actually thought Decay would be banned for the post too when I read it, it just seemed obvious to me.
The following text is not oriented against all admins. (I won't give names, drama hungering bananas)
The way I see it is that if some admins got to the topic before anyone saw it, then they would trash it, but now they will just have to play along.
I see some instances from time to time that are just horrible, though I won't list them here as it would be nothing but drama bait and not contribute anything to the matter at all. But fact is that some admins just do shit, just like Sarge, just a bit more "under the rug".
This is the staff section, the way this area works, is that new threads by regular users are not even visible to the public until a staff member approves/opens it. Though, a bit of transparency is needed: Anyone with a staff account can approve/open threads, though it is advised that the staff be on the same page about "big" posts like this one that are about staff reforms and other possibly drama(or "kangaroo court" as one person said) inducing things.

In general, the deterrence of or archiving of threads like that isn't always the product of malice. I amended the Trash area's description because there are some non-inflammatory posts that get sent there. I may rename it to Reycle Bin or something, I don't know for sure yet. (I also renamed "Off-topic Chat" to "General Chat", for example)

But even while I agree with what I just said (dohoho :igor: ), I also acknowledge that there are biases and other issues that will crop up in almost any situation, and I would not be surprised if they are in our staff.

I honestly like to hear feedback from the community about the specifics of individuals' actions, not so much ad hominem insults on the people but like some of you said, "I won't give names", etc. It's good to get some feedback and critique on what we're doing wrong, so that we can do what's right more easily and more often. At least, I have my fingers crossed. :happyface:

Lollipop wrote: Questions remain though:
Why doesn't Decay's post about Sarge say he got warned for it? The usual is that the post show that it have done something wrong and other can learn from that and not post similarily.

[...] Not that related sidenote
When admins give a warning, they send a PM with "you have recived a warning".
This is perfectly fine, but I have yet to see these PM's actually tell what rule you have broken and why they think so and how you can avoid doing so again. That should be pretty standard, unless it is with people who are known not to give a damn anyway (moderator must judge that), or if their time is short (should be marked).
I'll be transparent about this: The staff doesn't actually have anything in our staff rules and guidelines about editing posts to state the user was warned.
I think this was done by one moderator for a post that got lots of reports after the user was alerady warned, and other moderators followed suit to prevent that issue from happening again.

So, further transparency: I was the one that warned Decay, and his opening post in the thread had not been reported by anyone, so no one took it upon themselves to edit the post and clarify that it was warned because there wasn't a flood of reports on it.
I will also state that when I said that the warn was not meant to punish, I was clarifying the literal way the warn system works, you are not punished for getting 2-3 point warns, you only get punished automatically by the system after it reaches a higher value than that. I did this because for what ever reason, a lot of individuals that are warned interpret it as a harsh action that itself is meant to punish them, even though no actual post deletion, suspensions, or banning has occurred. Sorry for the confusion. :sadface:

I also told Decay that they could talk to me about any staff issues they had, but also encouraged them to communicate things with the staff, like they are doing right now. So in on that basic level, I have no problem with this thread and the subject of staff reforms. Like I said before, I've been trying to update and fix up a few things on the site for the past few weeks already, so why stop?

Lollipop wrote: And now to those I vote for:
Jenova - He is obvious.
Mifu - I find him obvious, he actually give a fuck about those he communicate with.
Legion - I haven't seen much of hes work, but what I actually have seen is good and un-biased.
I personally think that people posting their favorite "who I want on staff" dream-team thing isn't going to help us, we have to address the actual roots of the issue. Think of this like adding more features to a game before you iron out the bugs and glitches that already exist.

As for your list, I have spoken with Jenova on and off over the years, they do not want to be an administrator. As I stated earlier, Jenova already helps out in #staff on IRC.

As for Mifu and Legion, they're already part of the staff, and Legion is a moderator already. Are you saying you'd like them to be an Administrator or something? This ultimately is up to them.

I want to just clarify, realize that when a bunch of people vote for certain persons (like Jenova) to be admins or whatnot, they still have the choice to accept or deny the position themselves. We shouldn't pressure people into doing something they may not want or have the time to do.

I'd suggest less emphasis on "adding more cooks to the kitchen" and more emphasis on describing issues that you have.
Last edited by infurnus on Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Catastrophe
Addicted to Zandronum
Posts: 2558
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:44 am

RE: Let's Talk

#47

Post by Catastrophe » Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:08 pm

infurnus wrote: describing issues that you have.
Get rid of situations like this where it literally takes half the community to tell Metal that banning people for youtube comments is messed up. Oh and lets not forget the blatant bandwagoning on that thread. Staff please think for yourselves and don't always agree with people higher than you.

EDIT: Also why did swiftshot get banned for having too many posts in trash but not Mr. Cheater?
Last edited by Catastrophe on Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hammerfest-
Forum Regular
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:45 am
Clan: A3.33333333333333333
Clan Tag: A3.33333333

RE: Let's Talk

#48

Post by Hammerfest- » Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:11 pm

infurnus wrote: I'd suggest less emphasis on "adding more cooks to the kitchen" and more emphasis on describing issues that you have.
But why shouldn't we be able to? Let's be honest here, why describe what issues we have if the same cooks continually bring out the same platter. Plus, this isn't the first time where we had this kind of issue, especially back in Skulltag where the staff is practically the same with the exception of three or four people. In any case, "adding more cooks to the kitchen" should be kept open, so long as it is reasonable and so long as the person is willing to step up to the plate.
Swift as a breeze, fierce as a gale.

User avatar
infurnus
Forum Staff
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:40 pm
Location: Dusty SEGA Tapes
Clan: Unidoom
Clan Tag: UD
Contact:

RE: Let's Talk

#49

Post by infurnus » Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:35 pm

Hammerfest- wrote:
infurnus wrote: I'd suggest less emphasis on "adding more cooks to the kitchen" and more emphasis on describing issues that you have.
But why shouldn't we be able to?
It's kind of implied that you are still allowed to, it just shouldn't be the primary focus.

Hammerfest- wrote: Let's be honest here, why describe what issues we have if the same cooks continually bring out the same platter.
This, this specific line is actually the point I wanted to make. Only, I want to be on the same page and know what the specifics are, it's kind of vague when it's all in analogies and stuff like this.

Hammerfest- wrote: Plus, this isn't the first time where we had this kind of issue, especially back in Skulltag where the staff is practically the same with the exception of three or four people. In any case, "adding more cooks to the kitchen" should be kept open, so long as it is reasonable and so long as the person is willing to step up to the plate.
The main point you are saying is that people should be removed, correct?
It isn't that new people should be added, but that people should be added as a logical progression after others have been removed. Am I correct in this? Sorry for not understanding this right off the bat, I just want to know I'm on the same page.

EDIT:
Catastrophe wrote: EDIT: Also why did swiftshot get banned for having too many posts in trash but not Mr. Cheater?
His posting was actually automatically suspended after he got his last warn. It just doesn't show up because the user-specific moderation/suspension is different from the moderation panel suspension/bans (which are the ones issued at the way higher warn point levels). I also tested recently and saw that when a user is suspended it says they are banned, I am not entirely sure how to fix that. This might also give users the wrong impression that they have been immediately banned for doing something that was not a bannable offense... lots of stuff to fix up
Last edited by infurnus on Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lollipop
Zandrone
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Denmark

RE: Let's Talk

#50

Post by Lollipop » Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:54 pm

infurnus wrote: I personally think that people posting their favorite "who I want on staff" dream-team thing isn't going to help us, we have to address the actual roots of the issue. Think of this like adding more features to a game before you iron out the bugs and glitches that already exist.

As for your list, I have spoken with Jenova on and off over the years, they do not want to be an administrator. As I stated earlier, Jenova already helps out in #staff on IRC.

As for Mifu and Legion, they're already part of the staff, and Legion is a moderator already. Are you saying you'd like them to be an Administrator or something? This ultimately is up to them.

I want to just clarify, realize that when a bunch of people vote for certain persons (like Jenova) to be admins or whatnot, they still have the choice to accept or deny the position themselves. We shouldn't pressure people into doing something they may not want or have the time to do.
I just found it natural to list those people, and I think I know why people do this:
Those the people list are those who match some qualities that the people want to see in those who got power, that is why Sarge isn't on the lists for an example.

When I listed Mifu and Legion I wanted to "make sure they can stay", not that they should have a higher position, sorry for not explaining that proberly.

Sidenote: Your post was a really good read, other posters who post a wall of text (no names, you bananas who watch from the sideline) usually just scare me off from reading. You do not only give a little comment of your first thoughts on things, but actually go in-depth with the things you want to tell.
Therefore I got no questions for you, as you have answeared all those I could come up with on the go, except one: Why is reputation system disabled? Is it to avoid little idiots like me from getting enough downrating to crash the forums or something?

User avatar
Qent
Addicted to Zandronum
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 7:56 pm
Contact:

RE: Let's Talk

#51

Post by Qent » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:23 pm

-=Dark-Assassin=- wrote:
Decay wrote:Dissident administration is also demoted or removed from staff. I have been witness to several instances of this.
I'll be honest and can actually agree to this. I've seen it before, and experienced it as well.
But I am sure in my case it's not just that alone. There were times I screwed up, I admit that, but I don't think having everything you worked for stripped from you for it is a good way to deal with it.
I am not complaining now, I have found other ways to occupy my spare time, and without the headache of dealing with, even if mostly, a drama filled community. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like it back.


I also agree with Lollipop's post.
No, that is not why you were demoted. There is a thread where we explained why you were demoted.

Metal
Forum Regular
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:18 am
Location: Canada

RE: Let's Talk

#52

Post by Metal » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:51 pm

Lollipop wrote: Why is reputation system disabled? Is it to avoid little idiots like me from getting enough downrating to crash the forums or something?
We had it on for a while but I remember there being a small bug with it. What the bug was, I don't know, but a lot of people abused the feature as well. So it was disabled to 'fix' it and was never re-enabled by the staff. Still unsure why.
<EazyDI>harrased me
<EazyDI>and called me a dinner
<EazyDI>n*****
<EazyDI>lmao not dinner

User avatar
Spottswoode
Forum Regular
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:22 am
Location: That place over there.
Contact:

RE: Let's Talk

#53

Post by Spottswoode » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:33 pm

Ruin wrote:
Spoiler: stuff (Open)
Spottswoode wrote:
Ruin wrote:
Spottswoode wrote:
So I'm going to suggest two things at minimum:
1. Establishment of an appeals system. Bans and other forms of punishments on longer scales (in excess of one week) be publicly analyzed by the staff, appeals be given and publicly posted and reviewed, and that these appeals be given recurringly. The staff should then make future decisions in a stare decisis format based on previous bans. It won't be perfect, but you will be able to directly draw a basis and reasoning for a certain punishment as well as a basis for appealling your bans.
2. Rules and rule violations given out should be spelled out entirely with subsequent punishments and reasoning. The point is not so much to kill interpretation by admins as it is to give players a clear and concise detailing of expected rules that can be readily viewed. This will also help prevent admin abuse.
Now, we don't have to bog ourselves down into a bureaucracy with endless rules but we should have the capacity to engage and contest the rules and the rulemakers in a fair and open manner.

I think something like this was tried once. I don't remember it going too well. I think it went along the lines of posting the reason person X was banned, people were allowed to comment in that thread and say if the ban was justified based on the evidence provided. Though if my memory serves me well, some of the ban appeal posts were heavily biased based on the user's popularity within the community.
No, what was created then was actually an open jury system. Any time you open punishment to the court of public opinion you get a kangaroo court. What I'm suggesting is a closed appeals setting where the punished user has the right to address the administration with grievances, errors, or apologies as the case may warrant. In this case, the administration would make a thread containing the record of the ban. The system would work like this:
The ban thread would be created. It would contain all records pertinent to the incident. A lengthy explanation would not be required, and earlier cases could be cited where a lengthy one may be warranted with an attached explanation on how it applies to this case. The admin who issued the ban or the order to ban would create the thread and provide the reasoning. Users would not be allowed to post in this thread.
After a predefined period, the punished user would be allowed to make a request to appeal his punishment. Once a week, the user can have his appeal request processed. If the us, er keeps spamming his request, it will be ignored by default. The point here is to require the user to conform to a set of rules in order to show a) he/she is actually apologetic or b) he/she is capable of an orderly process and can keep from acting like a complete asshat all the time.
If the request is accepted, by the administration, the user will be allowed to make one post in that thread and have at least one person, of their choice, post on their behalf or in their defense. (I will personally volunteer many times for the latter.) The admin who made the thread can also make a post and have an equal number of people comment of their choice. The rest of the administration would also be allowed to comment, but it is not required of them.  This has several purposes: 
1. It allows the banned user a chance to be heard, particularly if he/she has a legitimate grievance. The user is also able to have someone come to their defense in this case. 
2. It gives the staff an open place to have their thoughts shared on the rules and procedure. You guys will be pleasantly surprised how offering your thoughts to the public on a poor policy can make a difference. Dissent is openly encouraged and visible here. 
3. It allows the public to be critical of policy without having a direct exertion over it.
If the appeal is succesful, as decided by the staff (however you guys wanna do it), the user has his sentence reduced/removed as dictated by the staff.
If the appeal fails to  meet expectations, the banned user must wait a predefined period of time. Once again, the idea is to make user prove they can follow some general rules.
I quite like this suggestion. I wouldn't mind implementing something like this.
I'll add two things I didn't have time to before:
-The process should be slow by design. There's little to no point in rushing to correct your errors in punishment as they will quickly lose all credibility and purpose.
-Individual judgement still applies: the purpose of the system is not to determine whether or not the "crime" actually occurred. It's to evaluate the punishment, procedures, reasoning, and general consensus amongst the staff. It also holds the staff accountable to each other and the users.
wrote:I do believe our rules and violations when it comes to the servers has a pretty straight forward punishment time frame (impersonation being 3 months, cheating being a year ban, etc). Perhaps they could be elaborated upon?
Many times, as with the Mobius ban, it's not entirely clear why the user was punished to everyone else. Being more concise as to specifically why a user is being punished, e.g. giving the exact reason why a user was warned, will avert most of the confusion and general feeling of animosity as to the staff's perceived bias. You should also gather those up when you ban someone so everyone else can see it.
Infurnus wrote:This is the staff section, the way this area works, is that new threads by regular users are not even visible to the public until a staff member approves/opens it. Though, a bit of transparency is needed: Anyone with a staff account can approve/open threads, though it is advised that the staff be on the same page about "big" posts like this one that are about staff reforms and other possibly drama(or "kangaroo court" as one person said) inducing things.
Kangaroo court wasn't a reference to anything you guys do here. I don't think there's realistically a chance that could actually happen here, at the current moment. I was referring to the Skulltag appeal topics where users openly posted their opinions on bans. I'll sorta repeat myself, any time you open punishment to the court of public opinion you get a kangaroo court or a good old boy system.
The number and individual cooks in the kitchen, as it were, is not really the basis of the problem around here. There are just some general procedural issues, particularly regarding lack of consistency in approach. In effect, you guys have problems with the bureaucratic approach, not the democratic.
Last edited by Spottswoode on Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dirge
(Killed, for now)
Image

The bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame.

User avatar
Dark-Assassin
Maintenence Crew
Posts: 962
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:25 am

RE: Let's Talk

#54

Post by Dark-Assassin » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:56 pm

I'm just going to make myself clear. I screwed up, even screwed up the post I made earlier. Only realized after I was reminded of the details of what happened.
I have a bad memory, and it really bugs the crap out of me.

That is all...
Last edited by Dark-Assassin on Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ru5tK1ng
Posts a lot
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:04 pm

RE: Let's Talk

#55

Post by Ru5tK1ng » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:58 pm

Just throwing this out there: Infurnus is possibly the last name or close to the last on the removal list. I'm fairly certain if there were more admins who attempted to be neutral and unbiased, Zandronum would have a competent administration capable of viewing things objectively.

Watermelon
Zandrone
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:07 pm
Location: Rwanda

RE: Let's Talk

#56

Post by Watermelon » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:22 pm

Metal wrote: I would like to clarify on the mobius ban.

The night before last, there was some discussion in the pro channel. This discussion somehow derailed toward posting pictures of people on the channel and ridiculing them. I was one of those people, as well as Nati, and a few others (So I've heard, I had left for work at this point so wasn't sure). It became pretty personal as he was posting these things in a channel that was far from private.

Was he banned from the channel first? Yes, his hostmask was still in the #pro banlist from a previous incident. I had thought someone unbanned him. But it turns out he was evading the ban and he was still on the banlist when I checked after the problem occured.

As stated in our IRC Rules
Be respectful of those around you. Abuse is not tolerated, and is dealt with sternly.
Mobius has broken this rule on multiple occasions all across the IRC network and has been warned many times for his behavior and for evading channel bans.
Question of the day:

If the community wanted you to step down, would you do so? Or is it not up to the community to decide such things? And why if not?
There is no wrong answer to the above. Please respond ASAP as the community needs this to be clarified before proceeding in this thread, thank you.



(This goes for all people in positions of power currently within the administration, Ruin has already commented; anyone who refuses to post their comments I will interpret that as answering no)

User avatar
HeavenWraith
Forum Regular
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 9:58 pm
Location: Lytheaum
Clan: Quebeh
Clan Tag: [A3]
Contact:

RE: Let's Talk

#57

Post by HeavenWraith » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:05 pm

Watermelon wrote: Question of the day:

If the community wanted you to step down, would you do so? Or is it not up to the community to decide such things? And why if not?
Depends on who and based on what. If several people I at least remotely respect came to point out my vices that make me an incompetent moderator, I would step down myself. On the other hand, a public forum poll or something of sort where everyone and anyone can vote (even a few times) wouldn't suffice. Otherwise I would've resigned my GV admin position long before I actually did. Sometimes good decisions are not popular and disliked by the general public.
[18:55] <Decay> if you're upset, it is your obligation to make someone else upset

User avatar
infurnus
Forum Staff
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:40 pm
Location: Dusty SEGA Tapes
Clan: Unidoom
Clan Tag: UD
Contact:

RE: Let's Talk

#58

Post by infurnus » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:07 pm

I would definitely step down if it came to it, but as it currently stands, the only controversial thing I've done recently was ban Sgt. Mark 4 (please don't hate me Brutal Doom fans!)

User avatar
Cyber'
Forum Regular
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:14 am
Location: Colorado
Clan: The Professionals
Clan Tag: <PRO>
Contact:

RE: Let's Talk

#59

Post by Cyber' » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:08 pm

Watermelon wrote:
Question of the day:

If the community wanted you to step down, would you do so? Or is it not up to the community to decide such things? And why if not?
There is no wrong answer to the above. Please respond ASAP as the community needs this to be clarified before proceeding in this thread, thank you.



(This goes for all people in positions of power currently within the administration, Ruin has already commented; anyone who refuses to post their comments I will interpret that as answering no)
Unlike kilgore, I would respect the wishes of the community if I were to no longer be needed. When you work 70-80 hour work weeks all year, maybe it's time eh? I got off work early, so I'll be available for today.

That being said, I would prefer to at least make sure that we are at least on the right track, since from what I'm reading, this thread is mainly over the situation/transparency of bans and warnings. I'm probably wrong though.

Now I'll get onto what everyone already knows. It's no secret that I did give 3 players a second chance 2 years ago. (Junior, and Anna being 2 of them) It should not have happened.
Since Zandronum happened I've yet to do any sort of early unbanning deals like that with the master server.

Currently all bans server wise are based on the In-Game rules that can be found here. This is to keep things fair on the master server side.

As far as forum-based warnings go. I'll be working on a thread that will give you guys a good idea on what we base our warnings on. Hopefully this gives the users, and staff, a better idea on why warnings are given.

IRC is more difficult to work with, however it can go either one of two ways. It can be based off of user and staff discretion, or it can go by the book. Middle ground is harder because of the gray zone, and I would prefer that the rules give more leeway compared to being by the book.

If you guys have a problem with a specific warning, user, staff member, developer, etc. You can always send me a message and I will investigate the situation.

I'll also continue to help with promoting events such as FNF regardless of my standing.
Projects completed : PROCTF, Jump Maze, Tricky ST. RJX.
Progress : RJX2 - Standby... | RJX remastered : Final Detail - 100% Complete! (wad on BE)
Newest Project : Jump Maze 1.5 (X2, JMX): Alpha (layout, minor detail) - Layouts complete: 16. Halfway mark reached!

I always love these calm moments before the storm...

User avatar
Qent
Addicted to Zandronum
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 7:56 pm
Contact:

RE: Let's Talk

#60

Post by Qent » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:08 pm

IMHO: No. This forum is not a democracy, nor will it ever be. Suggestions as to how it could be run better are welcome, even to the point of a community vote on whom they would like as moderator. The staff do want to improve this community and we would appreciate your help to do it. But this is a privately owned forum provided as a free service to people who like to play Zandronum, and demanding that someone hand over what they paid money out of pocket for is unacceptable. This is my opinion though, and not the rest of the staff's.

Now I have some questions for you:
Watermelon wrote: There is no wrong answer to the above. Please respond ASAP as the community needs this to be clarified before proceeding in this thread, thank you.
And why might that be? Should they refrain from making their opinions known if someone doesn't give them free rein? Or perhaps you are planning to do something else if you don't get an answer you like?
Watermelon wrote: anyone who refuses to post their comments I will interpret that as answering no
Pushy much? If there's "no wrong answer" then why are you assigning answers at all? Unless you're not really interested in knowing what the staff thinks and just want some leverage to make waves.

EDIT: I agree with HeavenWraith though: if you convince me that I am incompetent or should not be a moderator for some reason, then I will step down. But it would be because I agree with you, not because of popular opinion poll.
Last edited by Qent on Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Locked