The Suggestion Box

[Esternial]

• Establish precedent
  The rules are only limited in their scope and coverage, that's a fact. Nobody can foresee possible future players who engage in conduct that makes correct implementation of the rules increasingly difficult; a prime example would be Hippostania. This is why precedent is necessary. Questionable cases require an interpretation of the rules and the context of the situation rather than a clear-cut ruling, so when a ruling is eventually made - preferably based on input from both Mods and players alike, the rule must receive some kind of addendum, informing that this rule was brought up and deemed applicable in that particular case; links would be helpful.
  
  I would suggest that the playerbase and Moderation team takes a moment to recall "questionable cases" that were difficult to reach a ruling on and post them, establishing a list that we can all skim through and perhaps realize that the current rules need minor changes in phrasing or nuance that may make similar cases less questionable in the future. As a result, Mods will have a stronger foundation to build their ruling on and players will be more likely to accept the ruling.
  
  
• Locks
  I have a small issue on locks. On occasion, locks have been made based on some kind of rule violation, but nobody receives any punishment for violating the rule. Either you warn people for violating the rules, or you don't lock the thread and instead ask people to cool down.
  
  Just because you can't be bothered doesn't mean you should just lock it.

Oh, and don't remove post from the suggestion box that you don't consider relevant.

Or at the very least post here and reply as to WHY you consider them irrelevant.

[Galloism]

Why is Vonners's post erased over and over? Doesn't he has a point too or something to say?

[Esternial]

The fundamental issue that the Moderation team will not address, let alone acknowledge, is that there is a distinct lack of trust in said team. The Moderation team has, through its inability to behave with a reasonable level of competency and consistency has led to this situation where indeed significant numbers of posters, posters who have spent significant time on this site have left. Things like this do not happen overnight but rather only after considerable provocation. That Mods are now effectively above the rules with regards to flaming and spamming is a very serious situation. That any raising of this is considered a witch hunt, disappointing or otherwise looked upon as a negative attitude is belied by the constant request by the mod team to report infractions.

I think this should make an alarm bell ring up in the Modcave and make you realise that you need to work on your PR with the playerbase. People are getting frustrated by this seemingly arbitrary behaviour, occasional belittling conduct and lack of consistency.

It's time you realise that this can't be mended by fixing the tiny cracks. It's gone beyond that point. Acknowledge that it's too little, too late; a result of both your and our own shortcomings.

I suggest you really need to consider making big changes. I don't think you can fix this with just small solutions.

Look at your past mistakes and learn from them. See what you can do to prevent things like these in the future. I strongly urge everyone who reads this to post links to threads regarding to major Mod-related issues and questionable rulings so we can get some clarity. I'll see if I can pool these together and make some kind of list and - if I can find the time - see if I can work out some additions to our current rules.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

So I got this Mod telegram with regards to the deletion of my post -

Please read the opening post on the Suggestions thread. That was intended to be a place to make suggestions and hopefully accomplish something positive, not simply to bring up matters you wish to complain about. If you have a complaint, the proper place for it is a new thread in Moderation, or a GHR. Thank you.

This is in relation to the following post -

So here we are on the merry-go-round of “improve the rules” rather than attending to root issues. The rules themselves are not, by and large, at issue. Not that this has not been stated before ad nauseam, and roundly ignored.

So thank you for shutting down threads highly critical of moderation, thank you for creating a single thread in a pretty piss poor attempt at controlling the discussion. You must think we are idiots not to recognise and understand this very basic political ploy.

The fundamental issue that the Moderation team will not address, let alone acknowledge, is that there is a distinct lack of trust in said team. The Moderation team has, through its inability to behave with a reasonable level of competency and consistency has led to this situation where indeed significant numbers of posters, posters who have spent significant time on this site have left. Things like this do not happen overnight but rather only after considerable provocation. That Mods are now effectively above the rules with regards to flaming and spamming is a very serious situation. That any raising of this is considered a witch hunt, disappointing or otherwise looked upon as a negative attitude is belied by the constant request by the mod team to report infractions.

It is now a comical situation by and large, when mods who have completely lost the confidence of the player base are still allowed, somehow, to make rulings and statements of policy.

Oddly enoug there is a suggestion...to think about how the Mod team ought to address the loss of trust.

[Daistallia 2104]

My two cents worth:
The repeated deletion of the only valid suggestions I see in this thread, as well as repeated suppression of valid complaints about incompetent moderation and moderator misconduct indicate that you are not interested in making the changes needed. That long term players such as myself are making these complaints and leaving should not simply set off alarm bells, but rather great skreeching klaxons.

This will be my last post on NS, as I have indicated earlier I am leaving (and have effectively done so), at least for the foreseeable future.

Poor show, guys, poor show.

[Bezombia]

My two cents worth:
The repeated deletion of the only valid suggestions I see in this thread, as well as repeated suppression of valid complaints about incompetent moderation and moderator misconduct indicate that you are not interested in making the changes needed. That long term players such as myself are making these complaints and leaving should not simply set off alarm bells, but rather great skreeching klaxons.

This will be my last post on NS, as I have indicated earlier I am leaving (and have effectively done so), at least for the foreseeable future.

Poor show, guys, poor show.

Basically.

Picking and choosing what you reply to and getting the only real suggestions "out of site (pun required), out of mind" just further reinforces the point that not only is the system broken, but that the people breaking it don't want to fix it.
Famously, one of the mods said (paraphrasing) "I shouldn't have to rewrite the rules, I'm not the one who has a problem with them". Well yes, mod staff, you're right. You don't have a problem, you are the problem.

[Individuality-ness]

Moderation may or may not delete this. I don't know, and I don't particularly care, it won't hurt me.

But seriously. There are many problems with how moderation has done their job in the last few months. Locks are being made on threads in which the locking mod says "oh yeah, you're trolling", but without any further punishment. Other threads have been locked that have discussion points, but were critical of moderation, so lock.

Even now, Rubiconic's post is getting deleted, over and over and over, simply because he was asking for the removal of moderators in order to establish player trust.

You have been inconsistent, ruling that calling someone a "pomuous ass" is not a flame, even though anyone with basic reading comprehension knows that in order to stop acting like one, you have to BE one. Edlichbury did a more virolic post that didn't actually call anyone anything and criticized moderation for being unwilling to follow procedure that's laid out in the goddamned OSRS, and he got a three day ban for flaming.

You refused to allow people to call out your inconsistencies by saying that we all have beef with moderation. You constantly imply that we have an agenda, that we hate certain mods so much that we'd do anything to get rid of them.

Okay, fine, want me to say it? We DO have an agenda. We want a moderation team that is consistent. We want moderators to be honest with us, we want them to follow the same rules as we do.

Most of all, we want to TRUST you guys. But how can there be any amount of trust when four threads have been locked and posts deleted from this very thread that is supposedly meant for open communication?

Open communication and a willingness to listen to another's ideas? Yeah, sure, to a point. But once you get into "I think this moderator's actions are problematic because x, y, z and I can't trust that moderator to make fair rulings, please do something about it", bye bye!

I just want to know why.

[United Dependencies]

While I won't go as far as the recently deleted post. I will say that my number one concern with moderation as of late has been that of consistency. The rules, by and large, are fine. It's their implementation that seems off.

I don't think there is some sort of moderator corruption, I think there's just a lot of people on this website, not all of them actually interested in positive interaction, and a lot of well intentioned mods who don't have a clear method of dealing with bad posters.

Which isn't to say that mods are just running around like chickens sans heads, but that for the size of the forums, moderation can't be individuals acting in the manner they feel appropriate.

Consider an analogy: In a small group or village, informal policing works fine. Everyone knows everyone and we all get by largely ok. However, as the village grows in size and acquires more people, those charged with maintaining order benefit the most from having a standard operating procedure of sorts. Not to do so leads to different rulings and punishments for similar practices. This creates confusion about the rules and dissension amongst those players who were treated more harshly.

[Marquire]

You want my suggestion? Go nuclear.

Not even joking - go nuclear. Start over. Get Max in, replace the current staff with a new crop, new general rules, entirely new system. Wait a while to see if the players regain any confidence in the system. Because let's be honest here - the problem is that the divide between players and moderators is nearly insurmountable now. We have posters with absolutely no faith in the system, and they've become pervasive.

But let's be honest with why. Posters have, in the last month alone, created multiple threads, all critiquing moderation policy and offering actual suggestions on how to improve the system. Not only have none of our suggestions been considered or implemented, the single most common suggestion - the elimination of the "rules lawyering" offense - is completely off the table. Several mods have said so. When posters continued to critique, continued to offer suggestions, the threads were locked. Every recent thread started by players to address concerns with moderation was locked and all appeals ignored. After three weeks, my appeal of DLN locking the Critique thread is still just sitting there, unaddressed but locked. Now, the mods start their own - but on their terms. Posts that are inconvenient, like Vonner's, are just deleted. You don't get open critiques or suggestions - just those that don't upset mods. There appears to be no faith in posters by the mods, which has been apparent by multiple moderator rulings attacking players, visibly stating they are disappointed in the entire playerbase. Under those circumstances, where mods hand down snark-filled, obviously hostile rulings, is it any wonder players become disgruntled?

And since we have no outlet - "rules lawyering" is disallowed, open critiques are constantly falling under more scrutiny than elsewhere, and GHR's are essentially ramming against a brick wall - we have no idea where to put these feelings of disgruntlement. Which leads to angry posts, which in turn are reported. But then, since we can't really argue with decisions lest we fall to "Not a discussion forum!", we get no chance to see the rationale. We're told that there are mitigating circumstances, special things the mods can see but players can't. We get absolutely no look into how decisions are made and have almost no avenue to appeal them - at least, no avenue that ever led to results. Successful appeals are almost unheard of but also endanger the player - Samuraikoku for example still had his overturned ban used against him. So now, in addition to disgruntlement, we add complete confusion as to how the system works. And no ability to get an understanding of the system.

And this process has gone on for so long all we have left is our anger and distrust, while meanwhile no substantial changes come in. Mods and players grow further and further apart until eventually they start openly attacking each other. But since mods are mods, the players see their warnings, bans, and so on. But we see no such warnings or bans for mods. We report them and are told to "drop our witch hunt." Nevermind that had the report been of a player, it is almost certain they would have gotten at least an unofficial warning. Nevermind that many of us see our reports go completely unnoticed or unaddressed for weeks when they report mods, but it can take less than twenty minutes to hand down a three-day ban for a poster. The divide is so large that there is almost no way to bridge it anymore.

So just start over.

[The Archregimancy]

There will be no further deletion of posts from this thread.

If you have an opinion, please express it.

Thank you.

[Sedgistan]

Marquire/Edlichbury - you're currently serving a 3 day ban. That ban applies to you - the player. We're aware that you're appealing it; that does not allow you to post past ban. If you post again, with any account, before the ban expires, we will delete both nations.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

There will be no further deletion of posts from this thread.

If you have an opinion, please express it.

Thank you.

Thank you Arch.

[Bezombia]

There will be no further deletion of posts from this thread.

If you have an opinion, please express it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

As a general question, is it remotely possible that the portion of my post that was deleted be reposted?

[United Dependencies]

There will be no further deletion of posts from this thread.

If you have an opinion, please express it.

Thank you.

I have a question: I want to discuss the viability of rules lawyering. Where should I go to do that?

[Tsaraine]

I'll take a second to address the deletion(s) of Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f's post(s) - I removed the first one (and should have sent a VOM informing him of that; it slipped my mind, which is a stupid lapse and for which I apologise wholeheartedly. I removed it in accordance with the OP of the thread;

Check your vendettas and personal grudges at the door, please. Avoid inflammatory remarks, accusations, etc - this is an attempt to solve problems, not drag them out. Generalized insults and nastiness offer nothing of value to the discussion, and make it that much harder to get at the useful suggestions and feedback.

If you have a specific incident you wish to address or appeal, please post a new thread report in Moderation, or file a Getting Help Request gameside - this is not the place for reporting, or carrying on arguments.

Posts that do not suggest or address potential improvements, or are simply argumentative will be removed - either to Moderation where the incident can be addressed, or to the evidence locker so as not to clutter the discussion.

(I'll note that the Mod team is currently having a discussion about this part of the OP, because it seems, at best, to have been counterproductive; as Arch says, we shan't do it any more.)
I deleted the post because it seemed, to me, to be inflammatory and non-constructive; the latter part largely because it did not offer solutions. Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f is correct that we are "attempt[ing] to control the discussion" - because we want to have a constructive discussion, rather than round N+1 of "gripe about how terrible the mods are". That topic's been going round in circles for a while now, and nothing much has come of it in the way of solutions we can put in place.

You've raised the problems you see regarding consistency, as have other players - we have heard that loud and clear. What I would like is for people to take that as step one, as accomplished. Now, what's step two? How can we improve consistency? I am genuinely interested in hearing your solutions.

The primary problem in achieving greater consistency, to my mind, is that situations are variable. If we were to institute a flat punishment - let's say "flaming someone results in a one-day ban" (not actually suggesting that, BTW, it's an example only) we can't then take into account variables, such as "Does this player have a habit of offending in this way? If so, when did he do it last? How often does he do it? Does he contribute well to the site when he's not flaming, or is he only here to be an asshole? What, exactly, is the best way to get him to alter his behaviour so he doesn't flame in future?" - and that's without taking into account the thorny issue of "Does this reported post constitute flaming or not?"

Such a legalistic, IF/THEN approach might be consistent, but it would hardly be just, and wouldn't be in the interests of the health of the forums.

The current situation, in all its messiness, is also not in the interest of the health of the forums, of course. I would like to see it resolved as swiftly as is practical, but more importantly, as satisfactorily as is possible, and resolved firmly to the greater good. But it is a complicated problem, and I would like to know what you would have us actually do - simply saying "be more consistent!" does not comprise an entire plan that we can put in place.

Apologies to all for all this mess. Fucked if I know how to sort it all out.

[Caninope]

I'll take a second to address the deletion(s) of Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f's post(s) - I removed the first one (and should have sent a VOM informing him of that; it slipped my mind, which is a stupid lapse and for which I apologise wholeheartedly. I removed it in accordance with the OP of the thread;

Check your vendettas and personal grudges at the door, please. Avoid inflammatory remarks, accusations, etc - this is an attempt to solve problems, not drag them out. Generalized insults and nastiness offer nothing of value to the discussion, and make it that much harder to get at the useful suggestions and feedback.

If you have a specific incident you wish to address or appeal, please post a new thread report in Moderation, or file a Getting Help Request gameside - this is not the place for reporting, or carrying on arguments.

Posts that do not suggest or address potential improvements, or are simply argumentative will be removed - either to Moderation where the incident can be addressed, or to the evidence locker so as not to clutter the discussion.

(I'll note that the Mod team is currently having a discussion about this part of the OP, because it seems, at best, to have been counterproductive; as Arch says, we shan't do it any more.)
I deleted the post because it seemed, to me, to be inflammatory and non-constructive; the latter part largely because it did not offer solutions. Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f is correct that we are "attempt[ing] to control the discussion" - because we want to have a constructive discussion, rather than round N+1 of "gripe about how terrible the mods are". That topic's been going round in circles for a while now, and nothing much has come of it in the way of solutions we can put in place.

Tsaraine, part of the reason why that keeps coming up is because the Mods attempt to control discussion in such a way.

All the complaint threads are locked, and this succeeds them. Whenever someone tries to complain in this thread, he is told to make a new thread in Moderation, after all the old threads have been locked. Forgive me and the rest of the players if that does not engender support.

Furthermore, I've already mentioned my solution multiple times, as have other posters- introduce precedent and allow "rules lawyering". Rules lawyering is the single most requested change so far, and has been in several of these shindigs we've had over the past few years. Despite all the Moderation team's "openness" to critique, suggestion, and change, it's still not been implemented.

Rules lawyering is only bad if those making the rules are bad at their jobs.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I'll take a second to address the deletion(s) of Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f's post(s) - I removed the first one (and should have sent a VOM informing him of that; it slipped my mind, which is a stupid lapse and for which I apologise wholeheartedly. I removed it in accordance with the OP of the thread;

Check your vendettas and personal grudges at the door, please. Avoid inflammatory remarks, accusations, etc - this is an attempt to solve problems, not drag them out. Generalized insults and nastiness offer nothing of value to the discussion, and make it that much harder to get at the useful suggestions and feedback.

If you have a specific incident you wish to address or appeal, please post a new thread report in Moderation, or file a Getting Help Request gameside - this is not the place for reporting, or carrying on arguments.

Posts that do not suggest or address potential improvements, or are simply argumentative will be removed - either to Moderation where the incident can be addressed, or to the evidence locker so as not to clutter the discussion.

(I'll note that the Mod team is currently having a discussion about this part of the OP, because it seems, at best, to have been counterproductive; as Arch says, we shan't do it any more.)
I deleted the post because it seemed, to me, to be inflammatory and non-constructive; the latter part largely because it did not offer solutions. Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f is correct that we are "attempt[ing] to control the discussion" - because we want to have a constructive discussion, rather than round N+1 of "gripe about how terrible the mods are". That topic's been going round in circles for a while now, and nothing much has come of it in the way of solutions we can put in place.

You've raised the problems you see regarding consistency, as have other players - we have heard that loud and clear. What I would like is for people to take that as step one, as accomplished. Now, what's step two? How can we improve consistency? I am genuinely interested in hearing your solutions.

The primary problem in achieving greater consistency, to my mind, is that situations are variable. If we were to institute a flat punishment - let's say "flaming someone results in a one-day ban" (not actually suggesting that, BTW, it's an example only) we can't then take into account variables, such as "Does this player have a habit of offending in this way? If so, when did he do it last? How often does he do it? Does he contribute well to the site when he's not flaming, or is he only here to be an asshole? What, exactly, is the best way to get him to alter his behaviour so he doesn't flame in future?" - and that's without taking into account the thorny issue of "Does this reported post constitute flaming or not?"

Such a legalistic, IF/THEN approach might be consistent, but it would hardly be just, and wouldn't be in the interests of the health of the forums.

The current situation, in all its messiness, is also not in the interest of the health of the forums, of course. I would like to see it resolved as swiftly as is practical, but more importantly, as satisfactorily as is possible, and resolved firmly to the greater good. But it is a complicated problem, and I would like to know what you would have us actually do - simply saying "be more consistent!" does not comprise an entire plan that we can put in place.

Apologies to all for all this mess. Fucked if I know how to sort it all out.

If we are on round N+1 of "gripe about how terrible the mods are" then that is an indication that there are severe problems with the moderation team. Your discounting this as just gripes is yet again a clear cut example of having your head up your arse.

You can go on and on about rules changes until you are blue in the face. It will not change the fact that the framework for administrating said rules is either useless, utterly lacking or ignored.

Still I'd like to thank you for your belated apologies regarding the deletion of my posts. Up until a few days ago I'd have said thank you.

No longer.

There is only one Mod who has any respectability any more. We all know who that is.

edit - added I'd like to thank you....could have sworn I typed that...

[United Dependencies]

The current situation, in all its messiness, is also not in the interest of the health of the forums, of course. I would like to see it resolved as swiftly as is practical, but more importantly, as satisfactorily as is possible, and resolved firmly to the greater good. But it is a complicated problem, and I would like to know what you would have us actually do - simply saying "be more consistent!" does not comprise an entire plan that we can put in place.

Apologies to all for all this mess. Fucked if I know how to sort it all out.

My suggestion is the same as some others: Allow rules lawyering, and establish precedent.

My suggestions for establishing precedent: Archive controversial rulings or rulings that cover situations people wouldn't normally associate with certain rules. Over time mods should refer back to these rulings and use them as guidelines for future rulings.

If mods rule certain actions ok, then that action should be ok for everyone until the mods clearly establish otherwise.

Second: I think mods need to set out clear levels of punishments and time tables for punishments. Perhaps rules infractions can carry with them a certain level of warning and then a cool down time. Another infraction within the cool down time leads to escalation for as long as the poster keeps being troublesome. A player who commits a rules infraction after the cool down time has expired should get their punishment and a longer cool down time. If you already are not, I'd recommend flagging players who seem to make a habit of accruing infractions for extra mod supervision should their name come up again.

I'd also like to know where I can discuss the topic of rules lawyering. This does not seem like the best place.

[Tsaraine]

Tsaraine, part of the reason why that keeps coming up is because the Mods attempt to control discussion in such a way.

All the complaint threads are locked, and this succeeds them. Whenever someone tries to complain in this thread, he is told to make a new thread in Moderation, after all the old threads have been locked. Forgive me and the rest of the players if that does not engender support.

Furthermore, I've already mentioned my solution multiple times, as have other posters- introduce precedent and allow "rules lawyering". Rules lawyering is the single most requested change so far, and has been in several of these shindigs we've had over the past few years. Despite all the Moderation team's "openness" to critique, suggestion, and change, it's still not been implemented.

Rules lawyering is only bad if those making the rules are bad at their jobs.

Please believe me when I say I understand your reluctance to take "address specific complaints in their own Moderation threads" at face value; I'm sure in your position I'd feel the same. All I can say is we'll endeavour not to lock threads on specific Moderation rulings going forward. However, for that to happen, the threads need to stay directly attached to those rulings, and not veer into broader discussion of Moderation policy - that's what this thread is for.

Now, as to rules lawyering - it's possible I'm not up on current policy, or that we're using different definitions - but it's my understanding that players have always been, and continue to, be able to appeal rulings made about them. "I believe Post X is not offense Y because reason Z", that sort of thing. I'm not sure what you mean, aside from that. If you mean players saying "How come you warned me for X when you didn't warn another player for Y?", the only real answer I can give you is the one we've given all along - situations are variable, and we try to take players' histories into account. I try to be as clear as possible about the reasons behind warnings, when I'm handing them down, which is about the best I can do there.

[Tsaraine]

If we are on round N+1 of "gripe about how terrible the mods are" then that is an indication that there are severe problems with the moderation team. Your discounting this as just gripes is yet again a clear cut example of having your head up your arse.

You can go on and on about rules changes until you are blue in the face. It will not change the fact that the framework for administrating said rules is either useless, utterly lacking or ignored.

Still thank you for your belated apologies regarding the deletion of my posts. Up until a few days ago I'd have said thank you.

No longer.

There is only one Mod who has any respectability any more. We all know who that is.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f, this is exactly the sort of non-helpful post we would prefer not to see. If the framework for administrating the rules is not working, tell us what to do to fix it. Until you do, you are not helping. The inflammatory invective is also deeply unhelpful in making the Moderation team as a whole, or me personally, accept your concerns as worthwhile. I am trying to see past your flawed means of presenting your problems and engage with you in finding a solution - please do likewise.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

If we are on round N+1 of "gripe about how terrible the mods are" then that is an indication that there are severe problems with the moderation team. Your discounting this as just gripes is yet again a clear cut example of having your head up your arse.

You can go on and on about rules changes until you are blue in the face. It will not change the fact that the framework for administrating said rules is either useless, utterly lacking or ignored.

Still thank you for your belated apologies regarding the deletion of my posts. Up until a few days ago I'd have said thank you.

No longer.

There is only one Mod who has any respectability any more. We all know who that is.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f, this is exactly the sort of non-helpful post we would prefer not to see. If the framework for administrating the rules is not working, tell us what to do to fix it. Until you do, you are not helping. The inflammatory invective is also deeply unhelpful in making the Moderation team as a whole, or me personally, accept your concerns as worthwhile. I am trying to see past your flawed means of presenting your problems and engage with you in finding a solution - please do likewise.

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.

[Caninope]

Tsaraine, part of the reason why that keeps coming up is because the Mods attempt to control discussion in such a way.

All the complaint threads are locked, and this succeeds them. Whenever someone tries to complain in this thread, he is told to make a new thread in Moderation, after all the old threads have been locked. Forgive me and the rest of the players if that does not engender support.

Furthermore, I've already mentioned my solution multiple times, as have other posters- introduce precedent and allow "rules lawyering". Rules lawyering is the single most requested change so far, and has been in several of these shindigs we've had over the past few years. Despite all the Moderation team's "openness" to critique, suggestion, and change, it's still not been implemented.

Rules lawyering is only bad if those making the rules are bad at their jobs.

Please believe me when I say I understand your reluctance to take "address specific complaints in their own Moderation threads" at face value; I'm sure in your position I'd feel the same. All I can say is we'll endeavour not to lock threads on specific Moderation rulings going forward. However, for that to happen, the threads need to stay directly attached to those rulings, and not veer into broader discussion of Moderation policy - that's what this thread is for.

Now, as to rules lawyering - it's possible I'm not up on current policy, or that we're using different definitions - but it's my understanding that players have always been, and continue to, be able to appeal rulings made about them. "I believe Post X is not offense Y because reason Z", that sort of thing. I'm not sure what you mean, aside from that. If you mean players saying "How come you warned me for X when you didn't warn another player for Y?", the only real answer I can give you is the one we've given all along - situations are variable, and we try to take players' histories into account. I try to be as clear as possible about the reasons behind warnings, when I'm handing them down, which is about the best I can do there.

Yes, players can appeal and that appeals process is largely useless. However, "rules laywering"- pointing to a specific situation and a specific ruling, to prevent one from getting a warning is technically against the rules.

It makes no sense that, given the ruling allowing me to say that someone is "acting like a pompous ass", I shouldn't be able to say that to someone. If I do that and then get warned for that, it's bullshit. I'm not asking that all punishments be equal, I'm asking that all crimes be equal. To say that someone is allowed to say this in this one instance but someone else can say that because of some hidden reason known only to the Mods, it's complete and utter bullshit.

[Caninope]

If we are on round N+1 of "gripe about how terrible the mods are" then that is an indication that there are severe problems with the moderation team. Your discounting this as just gripes is yet again a clear cut example of having your head up your arse.

You can go on and on about rules changes until you are blue in the face. It will not change the fact that the framework for administrating said rules is either useless, utterly lacking or ignored.

Still thank you for your belated apologies regarding the deletion of my posts. Up until a few days ago I'd have said thank you.

No longer.

There is only one Mod who has any respectability any more. We all know who that is.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f, this is exactly the sort of non-helpful post we would prefer not to see. If the framework for administrating the rules is not working, tell us what to do to fix it. Until you do, you are not helping. The inflammatory invective is also deeply unhelpful in making the Moderation team as a whole, or me personally, accept your concerns as worthwhile. I am trying to see past your flawed means of presenting your problems and engage with you in finding a solution - please do likewise.

No, he's telling you exactly what to do.

Get rid of the rotten apples and the bad culture surrounding the Moderation team to rebuild trust with the players. How you take that specifically is up to you, but I don't think he's wrong.

[Tsaraine]

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.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

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.

I want to have a site where moderation is fair across the board. When we have mods who are allowed to flame and spam, thread get locked for trolling and the trolls escape censure, when people are browbeaten and snarked at by mods...it is not an environment that is healthy. It is quite clear that the majority of the moderation team are incapable of dealing with this reality and instead of working with us to deal with the situation, obfuscated the situation. Well the time has arrived where that is no longer acceptable.

YOU ARE LOSING LONG TERM POSTERS DUE TO CRAP MODERATION.

viewtopic.php?p=17138021#p17138021 <--- this would be a good starting point.