Advertisement
by UNIverseVERSE » Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:25 am
by Welsh Cowboy » Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:52 am
by Franklin Delano Bluth » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:32 pm
Tsaraine wrote:If the framework for administrating the rules is not working, tell us what to do to fix it.
by Confederate People of the United States » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:33 pm
Lunas Legion wrote:I run Fallout RPs. Everything else about the universe doesn't matter.
The Pan-Slavian Union wrote: Give a shotgun to a Gay, and he'll eventually find some way to masturbate with it. Give a shotgun to a Russian, and he'll defend his country.
The New Sea Territory wrote:All government oppresses by violating all our rights to "protect our rights".
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Confederate People of the United States wrote:You realize you will never win an argument on this website.
by Edlichbury » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:34 pm
by Franklin Delano Bluth » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:42 pm
Edlichbury wrote:I'd also advocate making the appeals process far more open.
by Tiltjuice » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:22 pm
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Tsaraine wrote:If the framework for administrating the rules is not working, tell us what to do to fix it.
Here's how you fix it: resign. Every last one of you. Make moderation, game admins, forum admins, and the ruleset, everything, something that is chosen by the community at large, via procedures agreed to by the community at large, and answerable to the community at large. Moderators and admins who are not performing to the community's satisfaction get replaced.If Max won't go along with it, we can make him an offer to offset a portion of his costs in exchange for this. If he still won't, it's time to leave. That's only a last resort, of course, because so many of us have so much invested here (in my case, I've been around for over ten years now--literally my entire adult life), and it'd be hard to rebuild what we have in a different place.
There are a couple of you who are eminently competent. I have no doubt that you would be heavily supported if you were interested in continuing to serve after this reform (and I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if you didn't). The rest of you, I get that maybe it's not your fault--whether it's just your personality, lack of interest, too much else to do, or what--you're just not cutting it. It sucks, but it is what it is. It might not be a blind man's fault he's blind, and he might really love the kids, but he still doesn't need to be driving the school bus.
by The UK in Exile » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:27 pm
Tsaraine wrote:Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:We have been over this time and time again. You have been given suggestions over the years and they've effectively been ignored...you bring on board a couple of new mods and pretend all is good while playing the "we can work on the rules" card.
That shit don't play no more.
Then what, exactly, do you hope to gain by all this - if we are so intransigent and unamenable to reason? If that shit don't play, which shit will? What is your actual goal, your ideal solution? If you don't in fact have one, if you're only here to poke and prod ... I'll have to kindly ask you to bloody well stop it.
by Esternial » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:29 pm
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Edlichbury wrote:I'd also advocate making the appeals process far more open.
This was suggested a couple of years ago, in a very in-depth discussion. I'm afraid that all that came out of it was some severe disingenuousness from Katganistan in an attempt to defend the status quo, that plenty of people called her out on.
Here's the thread. It's very long, but also very eye-opening--worth a full read if you have the time.
Tiltjuice wrote:Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Here's how you fix it: resign. Every last one of you. Make moderation, game admins, forum admins, and the ruleset, everything, something that is chosen by the community at large, via procedures agreed to by the community at large, and answerable to the community at large. Moderators and admins who are not performing to the community's satisfaction get replaced.If Max won't go along with it, we can make him an offer to offset a portion of his costs in exchange for this. If he still won't, it's time to leave. That's only a last resort, of course, because so many of us have so much invested here (in my case, I've been around for over ten years now--literally my entire adult life), and it'd be hard to rebuild what we have in a different place.
There are a couple of you who are eminently competent. I have no doubt that you would be heavily supported if you were interested in continuing to serve after this reform (and I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if you didn't). The rest of you, I get that maybe it's not your fault--whether it's just your personality, lack of interest, too much else to do, or what--you're just not cutting it. It sucks, but it is what it is. It might not be a blind man's fault he's blind, and he might really love the kids, but he still doesn't need to be driving the school bus.
The problem with that idea is that NS is so broad by now that community satisfaction isn't guaranteed. P2TMers don't care about what happens in II. TETers (mostly, I think, or at least a few) don't care about what happens in the rest of NSG. GE&Ters probably won't care about what happens in F7.
Not to mention introducing ideological bias from the players. I don't think that kind of openness is feasible - although I admit I'm generally satisfied with the current state of the moderation team.
by Jenrak » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:32 pm
Tiltjuice wrote:Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Here's how you fix it: resign. Every last one of you. Make moderation, game admins, forum admins, and the ruleset, everything, something that is chosen by the community at large, via procedures agreed to by the community at large, and answerable to the community at large. Moderators and admins who are not performing to the community's satisfaction get replaced.If Max won't go along with it, we can make him an offer to offset a portion of his costs in exchange for this. If he still won't, it's time to leave. That's only a last resort, of course, because so many of us have so much invested here (in my case, I've been around for over ten years now--literally my entire adult life), and it'd be hard to rebuild what we have in a different place.
There are a couple of you who are eminently competent. I have no doubt that you would be heavily supported if you were interested in continuing to serve after this reform (and I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if you didn't). The rest of you, I get that maybe it's not your fault--whether it's just your personality, lack of interest, too much else to do, or what--you're just not cutting it. It sucks, but it is what it is. It might not be a blind man's fault he's blind, and he might really love the kids, but he still doesn't need to be driving the school bus.
The problem with that idea is that NS is so broad by now that community satisfaction isn't guaranteed. P2TMers don't care about what happens in II. TETers (mostly, I think, or at least a few) don't care about what happens in the rest of NSG. GE&Ters probably won't care about what happens in F7.
Not to mention introducing ideological bias from the players. I don't think that kind of openness is feasible - although I admit I'm generally satisfied with the current state of the moderation team.
by Esternial » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:35 pm
Jenrak wrote:Tiltjuice wrote:
The problem with that idea is that NS is so broad by now that community satisfaction isn't guaranteed. P2TMers don't care about what happens in II. TETers (mostly, I think, or at least a few) don't care about what happens in the rest of NSG. GE&Ters probably won't care about what happens in F7.
Not to mention introducing ideological bias from the players. I don't think that kind of openness is feasible - although I admit I'm generally satisfied with the current state of the moderation team.
Maybe it's because I'm subconsciously scrambling to defend my position like some power-hungry feudal lord (don't think into it more than necessary and my opinions do not reflect those of the moderation team), but some mods are pretty specialized, so a blanket change would be bad.
by Tiltjuice » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:39 pm
Jenrak wrote:Tiltjuice wrote:
The problem with that idea is that NS is so broad by now that community satisfaction isn't guaranteed. P2TMers don't care about what happens in II. TETers (mostly, I think, or at least a few) don't care about what happens in the rest of NSG. GE&Ters probably won't care about what happens in F7.
Not to mention introducing ideological bias from the players. I don't think that kind of openness is feasible - although I admit I'm generally satisfied with the current state of the moderation team.
Maybe it's because I'm subconsciously scrambling to defend my position like some power-hungry feudal lord (don't think into it more than necessary and my opinions do not reflect those of the moderation team), but some mods are pretty specialized, so a blanket change would be bad.
by Forsher » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:25 pm
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:The thing is, you see, that it isn't used or applied in some cases. Hence the issue many posters have and have expressed, again, with lack of consistency in Moderation.
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Tsaraine wrote:If the framework for administrating the rules is not working, tell us what to do to fix it.
Here's how you fix it: resign. Every last one of you. Make moderation, game admins, forum admins, and the ruleset, everything, something that is chosen by the community at large, via procedures agreed to by the community at large, and answerable to the community at large. Moderators and admins who are not performing to the community's satisfaction get replaced.
by Esternial » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:35 pm
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:42 pm
Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.
People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.
A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.
Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?
by Esternial » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:43 pm
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.
People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.
A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.
Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?
You mean a sort of Ombudsman?
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:45 pm
by Fartsniffage » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:46 pm
by NERVUN » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:48 pm
Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.
People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.
A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.
Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:50 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Esternial wrote:Sort of, yes.
I don't think that would work. The person/s selected would be chosen by the moderation team and would have to be bound by restrictions placed on them by the moderation team. If the current issue is trust, which I believe it is, then that person or persons would be viewed with the same scepticism as the moderation team.
by Fartsniffage » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:52 pm
NERVUN wrote:Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.
People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.
A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.
Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?
We handle things that a. are private, and b. would give an enormous advantage in various aspects of the game should they be released. I know the forums are your home (mine too for that matter), but it is a small aspect of NS, there's more, a lot more, people who gameplay than there are people who post to the forums. Allowing someone to watch over would be very dangerous in terms of the information being released.
As Moderator Max has a 'hook' as it were in us, we've been vetted down as far as you can. What would this spokesperson have to guarantee the same? If they underwent the same process... why not just make them Mods in the first place? I'm really not seeing the advantage to anyone.
by Fartsniffage » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:53 pm
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
I don't think that would work. The person/s selected would be chosen by the moderation team and would have to be bound by restrictions placed on them by the moderation team. If the current issue is trust, which I believe it is, then that person or persons would be viewed with the same scepticism as the moderation team.
No...the person would be chosen by the user base.
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:53 pm
NERVUN wrote:Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.
People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.
A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.
Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?
We handle things that a. are private, and b. would give an enormous advantage in various aspects of the game should they be released. I know the forums are your home (mine too for that matter), but it is a small aspect of NS, there's more, a lot more, people who gameplay than there are people who post to the forums. Allowing someone to watch over would be very dangerous in terms of the information being released.
As Moderator Max has a 'hook' as it were in us, we've been vetted down as far as you can. What would this spokesperson have to guarantee the same? If they underwent the same process... why not just make them Mods in the first place? I'm really not seeing the advantage to anyone.
by Esternial » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:54 pm
NERVUN wrote:As Moderator Max has a 'hook' as it were in us, we've been vetted down as far as you can. What would this spokesperson have to guarantee the same? If they underwent the same process... why not just make them Mods in the first place? I'm really not seeing the advantage to anyone.
by NERVUN » Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:01 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:NERVUN wrote:We handle things that a. are private, and b. would give an enormous advantage in various aspects of the game should they be released. I know the forums are your home (mine too for that matter), but it is a small aspect of NS, there's more, a lot more, people who gameplay than there are people who post to the forums. Allowing someone to watch over would be very dangerous in terms of the information being released.
As Moderator Max has a 'hook' as it were in us, we've been vetted down as far as you can. What would this spokesperson have to guarantee the same? If they underwent the same process... why not just make them Mods in the first place? I'm really not seeing the advantage to anyone.
An interesting question. What is the vetting procedure for a moderator?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ferengi Alliance Union, Skiva
Advertisement