We want Forum Feedback!

[shikaru]

Is it possible for there to be "verbal warnings"? That is can mods pm a user about a concern and other mods be aware of it, or is it only possible for other mods to see actual warns handed out? Unless this is possible, in order for there to be this "lower" level warn, a mod would have to edit the content of the post in question so that other mods wouldn't see it and take action in addition to the first mod. Some members are opposed to mods editing their posts, but may accept this alternative to warns for lower level infractions. Would this be acceptable to members, mods, TJ?

I have seen cases in which mods have given verbal warnings or simply edited posts in cases where the offense was something small or starting to head into the wrong direction but not there yet. I know I did it a few times when I was an active mod, but only for little borderline things (ex. if a discussion would get particularly heated and things were about to escalate to name-calling (but no actual offenses had occurred), a verbal warning to calm things down is good). It isn't really applicable in all cases though, and some threads move too fast for mods to give a verbal warning before things escalate. There's no black and white in actually dealing with people either, no matter how hard set the rules are there will always be cases that come down to a particular mod's judgement call.

[Fuzzbucket]

I have seen cases in which mods have given verbal warnings or simply edited posts in cases where the offense was something small or starting to head into the wrong direction but not there yet. I know I did it a few times when I was an active mod, but only for little borderline things (ex. if a discussion would get particularly heated and things were about to escalate to name-calling (but no actual offenses had occurred), a verbal warning to calm things down is good). It isn't really applicable in all cases though, and some threads move too fast for mods to give a verbal warning before things escalate. There's no black and white in actually dealing with people either, no matter how hard set the rules are there will always be cases that come down to a particular mod's judgement call.

The trouble with that is that if your post is edited and the thread is moving fast - unless you always go back to check your own posts - and I know I don't ! -you may not even know it was edited...

[shikaru]

The trouble with that is that if your post is edited and the thread is moving fast - unless you always go back to check your own posts - and I know I don't ! -you may not even know it was edited...

When I edited posts I would usually also PM to explain why (or warn if it was needed, depended on the case).

[Rally Vincent]

A warning is pretty much a heads up to say "Knock it off!" - you're stepping over the line. In most circumstances, only if the behavior continues will posting consequences be applied. If you ignore the warning, well... there isn't much more I can say.

The first step to forcing people into conformity. When CD thinks a warning is unjustified, why should she the one giving in? Especially when it is debatable like warnings for spam etc. Threads get closed for allegedly having "spam" when none is to be found all the time.

 

Judging from this basis and from what other users have said about warnings they received, a good percentage of warnings is motivated by the same faulty definitions that get threads closed. Given that, obeying unjustified warnings will

 

1) put mods in the wrong believe that they are in sync with the userbase about unclear forum rules

2) prevent active members from giving input when they don't bother to put up with that kind of moderation

3) create an atmoshere of "with me or against me".

 

Unfortunately, I lost what I PM'd Sock what I think about spam/"staying on topic", but in a nutshell:

 

Nobody can think of every aspect of a topic, Thus, "straying" from a thread's topic naturally will occur because other members will have other (sometimes better) ideas the an OP. Often enough, good discussions are cut off for being "off topic" when the only thing that happened was that the discussion evolved over time. This simply is ridiculous, I can't express it any other way.

 

tl;dr - "Obey a warning" only is valid when the warning itself is valid, which it seems often enough it is not.

[LadyLyzar]

The first step to forcing people into conformity.

 

Except when when you signed up for this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules. We try to enforce them as best we can to make it a pleasant environment for everyone.

 

If you do feel that a warning isn't justified, back off and discuss with the mod in question, or take it to a higher authority if necessary. Don't keep adding fuel to the fire by repeating the behavior that got you the warn in the first place.

[skauble]

tl;dr - "Obey a warning" only is valid when the warning itself is valid, which it seems often enough it is not.

So the users get to decide what warns are valid instead of the owner of the site and his representatives?

 

Maybe it's just me, and maybe my life just really sucks in comparison to everyone else's (wouldn't be the first time I thought so ), but every single day in life I spend the majority of time in places that have their own rules and policies. Sometimes I follow those consciously - not talking loudly in the library, turning off cell phones at the movies - sometimes they're just second nature - following the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule. There are some policies I agree with, and some I don't, but I rarely think that I should get to go in and decide all of which policies and rules I think are right and then just refuse to follow the ones I don't personally like. And I honestly don't get how life works if that's what people do.

 

Frankly, I have a feeling that it's more the internet that brings this out. This idea that people should never ever be censored and that rules - which people generally agree to when they join a site, no matter how vague they are - are actually just recommendations that can be shrugged off. It's not always necessary to like a rule to follow it. And the fact that the majority of users seem to manage without a litany of warnings makes me think that following them is not quite as difficult as is being portrayed.

 

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think this is an appropriate place for a discussion of the rules and that it can be a good conversation to have. But unless a rule has real world, serious consequences, I don't see where it's okay to either decide that they don't need to be followed or that the enforcement of those rules isn't valid unless the person being warned agrees with them.

[KageSora]

What, though, happens when the mod in question just basically responds with "You're wrong because I said so now shut up"?

 

What story will they tell TJ if the user escalates it to him? I highly doubt they'd say "Oh, yeah, I totally just said they're wrong so that means they're wrong!"

[skauble]

What, though, happens when the mod in question just basically responds with "You're wrong because I said so now shut up"?

 

What story will they tell TJ if the user escalates it to him? I highly doubt they'd say "Oh, yeah, I totally just said they're wrong so that means they're wrong!"

Don't they have to tell you that in a PM? Then you could just forward that to TJ and he'd decide what to do, I would suppose.

[shikaru]

What, though, happens when the mod in question just basically responds with "You're wrong because I said so now shut up"?

 

What story will they tell TJ if the user escalates it to him? I highly doubt they'd say "Oh, yeah, I totally just said they're wrong so that means they're wrong!"

If a mod responds to a something like that, I certainly think they should be reported for it. Save the PMs or whatever else is relevant and make sure you have the evidence to show. If someone is abusing power and you can prove it, action will be taken. However, if someone just goes to TJ with that and can't provide evidence it comes down to the user's word vs the mod's word. At that point it's not clear cut who to trust.

 

Giving a "because I said so" response isn't something anyone wants to hear, and it isn't something anyone should be given.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

There are some policies I agree with, and some I don't, but I rarely think that I should get to go in and decide all of which policies and rules I think are right and then just refuse to follow the ones I don't personally like.  And I honestly don't get how life works if that's what people do.

 

[...]

 

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think this is an appropriate place for a discussion of the rules and that it can be a good conversation to have.  But unless a rule has real world, serious consequences, I don't see where it's okay to either decide that they don't need to be followed or that the enforcement of those rules isn't valid unless the person being warned agrees with them.

The issue is, though, that most forum rules aren't as concrete as the examples you listed. For example, the no shirts/no shoes/no service rule you listed, that's a very clear rule, and easy to follow. Some forum rules (like don't post porn!) are also that clear and easy to follow. But then there are rules like 'don't post spam,' which, while obvious in some regards (don't post ads for some other site, don't just keep posting SQUIRREL in every thread or whatever), are less obvious in others. Let's say there's a topic about Shimmers, and someone posts in it comparing how well they're breeding to how well Tinsels used to breed, and then someone else makes a comment that only addresses how Tinsels used to breed, which is related to the discussion, yet isn't directly focused on how Shimmers are doing. Is that spam...? And so on.

 

Even if the rules here don't have 'real' consequences, they still DO have consequences. If a rule is too strict, and a ton of people get slapped with warns for it every day, then they're going to get punished. Trying to work on a dragon request or play a forum game while you have to have all your posts approved by mods is not fun in the slightest. If people feel they got that punishment unfairly, they protest the rule. I know that there was a time when I was getting warned for using even the smallest bit of sarcasm in my posts, and I was so frustrated with what I considered to be overly strict interpretation of the 'don't be rude' rule that I didn't really give a monkey's butt about whether my posts were sarcastic or not after that.

Edited March 24, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Rally Vincent]

Except when when you signed up for this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules.  We try to enforce them as best we can to make it a pleasant environment for everyone.

 

If you do feel that a warning isn't justified, back off and discuss with the mod in question, or take it to a higher authority if necessary.  Don't keep adding fuel to the fire by repeating the behavior that got you the warn in the first place.

Apples and pears. Nobody disputes that the rules are to be obeyed. It is the interpretation of the rulers that users are unhappy with, not that there are rules to obey. The current interpretation of "spam" and "off topic" is not within the definition as I (and obviously other users as well) define spam. I might add that some mods are very rigid (too rigid in my opinion) and kill healthy discussions by that - twofold I might add, for one by closing the thread and secondly by putting members "in line".

 

And finally - you say that the forum staff want to create a pleasent environment for everyone. I believe that this is true, but the level amount of complaints should be proof that there is room for improvement. That is what thje feedback is about, and it is not encouraging when the reaction(s) for it are not "We will discuss if something needs to be done", but a simple "If you don't like it, PM TJ".

 

 

 

So the users get to decide what warns are valid instead of the owner of the site and his representatives?

 

Maybe it's just me, and maybe my life just really sucks in comparison to everyone else's (wouldn't be the first time I thought so  ), but every single day in life I spend the majority of time in places that have their own rules and policies.  Sometimes I follow those consciously - not talking loudly in the library, turning off cell phones at the movies - sometimes they're just second nature - following the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule.  There are some policies I agree with, and some I don't, but I rarely think that I should get to go in and decide all of which policies and rules I think are right and then just refuse to follow the ones I don't personally like.  And I honestly don't get how life works if that's what people do.

 

So, users should not voice when they think something is going wrong with a forum policy? Mods are given authority over the functionality of the board, not to hivemind the userbase with warns. If warnings are given out on a policy that many users think is applied incorrect, I pity the userbase that shells in and doesn't speak up.

 

Why dou you think you can appeal court decisions? Should a citizen decide that a verdict is valid instead of the state and his representatives? My answer is: yes, if the verdict is wrong.

 

Take your "no shirt, no service" rule. You are a woman by your profile, so let's say you go into that store waering a spaghetti strap top. The SA then says: "No service. A shirt has sleeves." I would say "shirt" means that you don't go topless (men) or in a bikini into the store. Would you bow down or go to the manager and complain about the SA who clearly didn't put his judgement by what was intended with the "no shirt, no service" rule?

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think this is an appropriate place for a discussion of the rules and that it can be a good conversation to have.  But unless a rule has real world, serious consequences, I don't see where it's okay to either decide that they don't need to be followed or that the enforcement of those rules isn't valid unless the person being warned agrees with them.

 

Again, it is the interpretation of the rules, not "not following" them.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Rally Vincent

[shikaru]

And finally - you say that the forum staff want to create a pleasent environment for everyone. I believe that this is true, but the level amount of complaints should be proof that there is room for improvement. That is what thje feedback is about, and it is not encouraging when the reaction(s) for it are not "We will discuss if something needs to be done", but a simple "If you don't like it, PM TJ".

I haven't seen anyone saying that nothing will be discussed, and the only case in which anyone has said anything close to "If you don't like it, PM TJ" is in regards to abuse of power. If someone is abusing power then changes to the rules and enforcement aren't going to fix that. A case of power abuse is something that needs to be handled by PMing TJ or bringing it to the attention of another mod.

 

No matter how clear cut the rules are made, there will always be cases where the user and mod disagree, those are things that need to be discussed and worked out on a case-by-case basis. Those aren't a matter of the rules, but of people.

 

 

Saying the rules aren't clear is different than saying mods are "trigger-happy".

Edited March 24, 2013 by shikaru

[skauble]

Apples and pears. Nobody disputes that the rules are to be obeyed.

 

Actually lots of people in this thread have disputed that very thing. That's what all the "If I get warned so much then I'm just going to do what I want" is about, and that's what CD said when she said that her interaction with the mods wouldn't completely stop the behavior they had a problem with.

So, users should not voice when they think something is going wrong with a forum policy? Mods are given authority over the functionality of the board, not to hivemind the userbase with warns. If warnings are given out on a policy that many users think is applied incorrect, I pity the userbase that shells in and doesn't speak up.

 

Why dou you think you can appeal court decisions? Should a citizen decide that a verdict is valid instead of the state and his representatives? My answer is: yes, if the verdict is wrong.

 

Take your "no shirt, no service" rule. You are a woman by your profile, so let's say you go into that store waering a spaghetti strap top. The SA then says: "No service. A shirt has sleeves." I would say "shirt" means that you don't go topless (men) or in a bikini into the store. Would you bow down or go to the manager and complain about the SA who clearly didn't put his judgement by what was intended with the "no shirt, no service" rule?

I actually tried to be very clear that this was a good place to have an appropriate discussion about these rules. What I have a problem with is that yes, actually, people are being quite clear that they don't mind not obeying the rules once they decide that it's not worth it or not important.

 

Your example with the shirt/service rule is perfect. Yes, I might very well speak to a manager. However, if they maintained that it was their policy, then I would either follow it or go to a different store. What I wouldn't do is just say, "No, I think you're wrong or that you don't enforce your policy in a way I like so I'm going to shop here anyway and just ignore your policies". And, again, people in this thread have alluded to just that.

[tjekan]

Maybe I'm weird, but I actually prefer getting a warn to being scolded by a mod in PM. I mean, if it's something that's an obvious mistake, like "you posted your alt black trade in the metallics forum!", then yes, I definitely appreciate a kindly PM heads-up. But if it's a violation of one of those vague nebulous forum rules like "don't say something one of us might consider too chatty," I'd rather just take the warn than get a bossy PM which I then would have to decide whether or not to respond to. :-)

 

The thing that kind of bugs me is that most of the forum rules don't seem to deter the people I assume they were created for. Rude, harassing people are still being rude and harassing. They apparently are pretty good at figuring out how to keep from getting completely banned, and they could not care less about warnings and bad reputations and even falling on the wrong side of a temporary ban. Cheaters and liars are still cheating and lying. Driving IOU's underground did not seem to cramp their style; it just inconveniences the rest of us. And drama-creating people are still creating TONS of drama any time they feel like it. Meanwhile normal users are having harmless conversations truncated and locked due to "spam" which might theoretically spiral into drama. While the actual drama just keeps rolling on unimpeded. I'd be curious to see whether a relaxing of the somewhat draconian forum rules would actually result in more drama, chaos, and rudeness. I'm betting it really would not. The amount we already have here is pretty much the amount we're going to have.

[Rally Vincent]

I haven't seen anyone saying that nothing will be discussed, and the only case in which anyone has said anything close to "If you don't like it, PM TJ" is in regards to abuse of power. If someone is abusing power then changes to the rules and enforcement aren't going to fix that. A case of power abuse is something that needs to be handled by PMing TJ or bringing it to the attention of another mod.

 

No matter how clear cut the rules are made, there will always be cases where the user and mod disagree, those are things that need to be discussed and worked out on a case-by-case basis. Those aren't a matter of the rules, but of people.

 

 

Saying the rules aren't clear is different than saying mods are "trigger-happy".

I mixed two different aspects there, sorry about that. Let me rephrase it to make it clearer. Straying from the topic of unjustified warnings I went to the related subject of threads getting closed for reasons that are the same or at least similar to reasons that warnings are given out - for "spam" or "off-topic-ness".

 

My point is that both - warnings and closing threads - are given out/done too often because judgement does not happen reagrding the intention, but the letter of the rule (and the latter by the tighest possible interpretation of the spam rule).

 

To that, I hear much "if you think a mod was wrong, PM a higher up". And this is a standard reply, not an occasional answer based on a singular incident.

 

I know I often complained in the past. I assume it would be only human that someone might think: "Oh, him again." On the other hand, not much has changed (I noticed that a bit more leeway is give to reopening htreads after them getting closed, but the reasons for closing them temporarely stayed the same). I also know that I mostly don't bother writing in topics anymore where I do not have a very strong opinion. That is a result of the interpretation of rules here.

 

I know other users who don't bother to post on DC because of that, and several users have said so in this thread or on other occasions. Creating a friendly environment cannot be achieved by tiring out those who feel not comfortable posting on DCF. That is an environment that only is friendly for very relaxed people (or those who are happy to run with the mass).

 

Let me add that I will speak my mind because I care about DC the game and naturally want to extend this feeling to the forums. But quite frankly, if it wasn't he official forum, I would have stopped posting a long time ago. A forum is a place to mix and mingle, but all the vibes I am getting from the moderation here is: Do that elsewhere, we have serious business here - and nothing else. That isn't what I think is a "firendly" environment, and I certainly do not feel welcome here.

[Cinnamin Draconna]

Oh, believe me, it can get out of hand. I went from 0 to banned for 72 hours in the course of 6 hrs. The first warn was inconsequential and should have never been given, but then it got taken out of context and the Mods made it worse. It just excalated from there, including the censorship which I loathe with a passion.

 

I took it to TJ and he sorted it out.... AFTER the ban was over, he did make me take the punishment.. but what was so funny about it, is because it started from me criticizing TJ. I am NOT a TJ fangirl, never will be and don't want to be, but there are some Mods who do 'seem to be' and that gets interesting.

 

Will that series of punishments stop me from doing it again? Only to a degree. If I make it to the level of 'moderated posting' again, I'll probably just quit for good, because I hate censorship with a passion, and censoring me just makes me worse and more vocal. Unfortunately, on a forum you can't call your lawyer to keep your voice heard, once you're censored your silent.. and there's not a darn thing you can do about it.

Quoting myself because something was taken out of context... again.

 

The reason the warns did no good, was because the original warn was unjustified and an overjealous mod just made it worse. Someone decided that I am not allowed to criticize TJ in public, and turned my general sarcasm into a rude personal attack on TJ, and I must have hurt their fangirl feelings too.

 

I don't like being treated like a child when I'm probably one of the oldest players here. Especially by some teenager on a power trip just because they're a mod.

[tjekan]

That's what all the "If I get warned so much then I'm just going to do what I want" is about... What I have a problem with is that yes, actually, people are being quite clear that they don't mind not obeying the rules once they decide that it's not worth it or not important.

Skauble, I can't speak for anybody else-- maybe some people really do take that attitude-- but from my point of view, it's more like some of these rules are so vague that people can't really take any useful lesson from the warning, or apply it to anything they do in the future. Warns often seem to have more to do with being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

If someone gets a warn for being "disrespectful" when they're just expressing opinions they've expressed dozens of times before with no warn, the odds of their taking a useful lesson from that warn are low. Same if they get a warn for "spamming" when they're just going on a slight tangent off the topic that they've seen hundreds of other users do before. If they're getting a warn for something concrete like using disallowed language or disobeying a mod's request to stop talking about something, then I'd assume the warn would have more of a disciplinary effect. If users aren't able to make the connection "I'd better never do this particular specific thing again or I'll get in trouble," then the warn is just going to seem random to them.

 

Not to be too demeaning to users here, but it's analagous to using a squirt bottle on a cat. If you use the squirt bottle whenever the cat starts to scratch the sofa, he will probably learn to stop scratching the sofa. But if you use the squirt bottle on him every once in a while when you happen to think his tussling with the dog is starting to get too rough, he's not going to learn to play more gently with the dog, he's just going to decide that sometimes you randomly attack him with a squirt bottle and he might as well just carry on with his life and hope it's not a squirt bottle day.

Edited March 24, 2013 by tjekan

[Fuzzbucket]

tl;dr - "Obey a warning" only is valid when the warning itself is valid, which it seems often enough it is not.

That's a bit like saying you should only have to drive on the right side of the road (N America etc) if something else is coming; otherwise you can do your own thing, and if a cop challenges you by pointing out that the law requires you to drive on the right, not doing so because you can't see any reason why you shouldn't drive on the left if you want to.

 

I don't think so.

 

We don't have to be here. If you come to my house, you don't get to smoke. I don't care that smoking is perfectly legal; I don't care if you want to; I don't care if you think my taking your lit cigarettes off you and putting them all out is unfair - it's my house and if you want to smoke, you go somewhere else.

 

The thing that kind of bugs me is that most of the forum rules don't seem to deter the people I assume they were created for. Rude, harassing people are still being rude and harassing. They apparently are pretty good at figuring out how to keep from getting completely banned, and they could not care less about warnings and bad reputations and even falling on the wrong side of a temporary ban. Cheaters and liars are still cheating and lying. Driving IOU's underground did not seem to cramp their style; it just inconveniences the rest of us. And drama-creating people are still creating TONS of drama any time they feel like it.

But yes, this. Most of the people in this thread are not the ones who are creating havoc being rude and offensive.

Edited March 24, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[Rally Vincent]

That's a bit like saying you should only have to drive on the right side of the road (N America etc) if something else is coming; otherwise you can do your own thing, and if a cop challenges you by pointing out that the law requires you to drive on the right, not doing so because you can't see any reason why you shouldn't drive on the left if you want to.

 

No, it is not a bit like your example. Left and right are not open for interpretation! Let me repeat it (again!). Your example is: I disobey a rule which I think is stupid. I never said that.

 

Slightly more accurate would be a four-way-lane, two for each direction. The rule for traffic is: Right side of the road (and no other rule, for clarification purposes). You are driving on the left lane of the right side of the road. Now a cop stops you and reprimands you because you were not on the right side (which you were - you weren't in the right lane, but on the right side). This example still is way off, but I still wrote it down to show you the difference.

 

I never defended breaking rules. I am all for voicing resistance against close-minded interpretation of rules, though.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Rally Vincent

[Lythiaren]

Just because you don't have an answer doesn't mean that it's not being discussed or dealt with.

Seeing mods repeating the same behaviour several times after informing TJ tells me that either I was ignored or no discussion has taken place. Or that discussion did take place but the concern was shrugged off.

 

But that's exactly what happened last time I complained about a mod to another member of staff.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Skauble, I can't speak for anybody else-- maybe some people really do take that attitude-- but from my point of view, it's more like some of these rules are so vague that people can't really take any useful lesson from the warning, or apply it to anything they do in the future. Warns often seem to have more to do with being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

If someone gets a warn for being "disrespectful" when they're just expressing opinions they've expressed dozens of times before with no warn, the odds of their taking a useful lesson from that warn are low. Same if they get a warn for "spamming" when they're just going on a slight tangent off the topic that they've seen hundreds of other users do before. If they're getting a warn for something concrete like using disallowed language or disobeying a mod's request to stop talking about something, then I'd assume the warn would have more of a disciplinary effect. If users aren't able to make the connection "I'd better never do this particular specific thing again or I'll get in trouble," then the warn is just going to seem random to them.

 

Not to be too demeaning to users here, but it's analagous to using a squirt bottle on a cat. If you use the squirt bottle whenever the cat starts to scratch the sofa, he will probably learn to stop scratching the sofa. But if you use the squirt bottle on him every once in a while when you happen to think his tussling with the dog is starting to get too rough, he's not going to learn to play more gently with the dog, he's just going to decide that sometimes you randomly attack him with a squirt bottle and he might as well just carry on with his life and hope it's not a squirt bottle day.

This is very well said!

 

If I got a warn that said, say, to stop using a certain word I didn't know was a curse word, or that I couldn't post 'view my eggs plz,' then I'd know exactly what to avoid doing and wouldn't do it again.

 

Whereas, say, telling someone not to post spam when they've posted the same exact thing in other places before and not got warned for it... doesn't make much of an impression. Not something I've personally had an issue with, but I can see where it might happen.

 

Really, though, like I said ages ago when this discussion first sprang up--I'd really just like to see warns reserved for 1) obvious cases of clear rule-breaking and 2) extreme cases of vague rule-breaking. There is a rule that says don't post porn. That is a very black-and-white rule. There's no gray area on that one, and anyone who breaks it ought to be warned (if not entirely banned, heh). However, with stuff like 'don't spam,' reserve it for people who go around posting "SQUIRRELS!" in every thread, or saying "hey can you plz sign up for this website, it's good ;3" everywhere, not people who go slightly off-topic because they're having fun talking about the game with other users. When in doubt, don't warn.

Edited March 24, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[skauble]

Skauble, I can't speak for anybody else-- maybe some people really do take that attitude-- but from my point of view, it's more like some of these rules are so vague that people can't really take any useful lesson from the warning, or apply it to anything they do in the future. Warns often seem to have more to do with being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

If someone gets a warn for being "disrespectful" when they're just expressing opinions they've expressed dozens of times before with no warn, the odds of their taking a useful lesson from that warn are low. Same if they get a warn for "spamming" when they're just going on a slight tangent off the topic that they've seen hundreds of other users do before. If they're getting a warn for something concrete like using disallowed language or disobeying a mod's request to stop talking about something, then I'd assume the warn would have more of a disciplinary effect. If users aren't able to make the connection "I'd better never do this particular specific thing again or I'll get in trouble," then the warn is just going to seem random to them.

 

Not to be too demeaning to users here, but it's analagous to using a squirt bottle on a cat. If you use the squirt bottle whenever the cat starts to scratch the sofa, he will probably learn to stop scratching the sofa. But if you use the squirt bottle on him every once in a while when you happen to think his tussling with the dog is starting to get too rough, he's not going to learn to play more gently with the dog, he's just going to decide that sometimes you randomly attack him with a squirt bottle and he might as well just carry on with his life and hope it's not a squirt bottle day.

I agree with you that A. the rules could be a bit more fleshed out, if for no other reason than they deviate from what people are used to in forums in regards to chatting and off-topicness, which is where a lot of people are having issues, and B. while I agree with mods that some things are case by case and matters of personal discretion, there may need to be some laying out of warnable defenses, in more detail amongst the mods, so that warns are handed out in a consistent and uniform way.

 

But I also think that some of this is less vagueness, at times, and more that some people really find some rules stupid and so they just kind of believe that whatever it is really isn't a rule, somehow.

 

Take the chatting and off-topic issue and the Shimmer topic. Personally, I've supported having the broader Shimmer topic because I think that this has been an exciting development and is still new enough that most talk that's actually about Shimmers is appropriate.

 

However, that's not what we had. We had a "Shimmer Breeding" topic. Now people may think that's too narrow a topic, and people are reasonable in saying that picking out that one aspect seemed kind of random to them and that it limited a whole bunch of legitimate dragon discussion.

 

But what it wasn't was unclear:

 

Here we can talk about lineages with shimmers that we've created and/or would like. Congrats (such as "I got a shimmer" or "My shimmer bred" etc can be posted in the congrats thread).

 

No trading/gifting etc should be posted here. For trading and gifting and announcing departures use the appropriate threads in trading section.

 

People may think (and are certainly entitled to and definitely free to come here and express it) that that is the most ridiculous, discussion ruining, fun removing way to create a topic ever. But, clearly, all you can talk about in the thread is Shimmer lineages you've made or ones you would like to.

 

Definitely an extremely narrow topic and I can see why it wouldn't be satisfying to excited Shimmer owners, but it is straight to the point. No one has to like it (indeed, most people seem to really, really hate it lol), but clearly the only thing that's on topic in that thread is lineages we made or lineages we want.

 

Again, I want to stress here that I totally get why people didn't like that topic, and I completely understand people here complaining about the other one being replaced by this. But that dislike and that finding the rule ridiculous doesn't make the purpose of the thread unclear. And while I see why people can loathe that (and I've hated it myself a number of times), like I said earlier, you can hate a rule and still follow it.

 

So I agree that there could probably be more uniformity with how the mods warn and what, exactly, was wrong with a post, but maybe if people get a warn and they honestly don't understand what, specifically, they did, they can ask the mod. And then, even if they don't feel satisfied by the justification, at least they'll know what behavior not to repeat while they're pursuing the matter or after it's done.

[Vhale]

That clarity isn't about what the topic was about. But exactly what constitutes chatter or warn worthy posts that appear to be on topic to the user base, but apparently not to the mods. The feeling is that every post must contain a proper paraphrase in some way about the initial OP, without addressing any previous posts. Because addressing previous posts seems to be when people get accused of chat. Even if all posts are about shimmer breeding.

[Nectaris]

That clarity isn't about what the topic was about. But exactly what constitutes chatter or warn worthy posts that appear to be on topic to the user base, but apparently not to the mods. The feeling is that every post must contain a proper paraphrase in some way about the initial OP, without addressing any previous posts. Because addressing previous posts seems to be when people get accused of chat. Even if all posts are about shimmer breeding.

Also, a lot of the confusion regarding chat is regarding news topics. Many times in the most recent release you came across mods warning people to stay on topic when it was hard to tell exactly where people were going off topic, if they were at all.

 

And to me, a lot of the unhappiness regarding the shimmer topic was a broad, everything goes topic to a very narrow topic. Why CAN'T there be broad topics? Why does everything have to be broken down to their components?

Edited March 24, 2013 by Nectaris

[skauble]

That clarity isn't about what the topic was about. But exactly what constitutes chatter or warn worthy posts that appear to be on topic to the user base, but apparently not to the mods. The feeling is that every post must contain a proper paraphrase in some way about the initial OP, without addressing any previous posts. Because addressing previous posts seems to be when people get accused of chat. Even if all posts are about shimmer breeding.

Except that they weren't all about breeding Shimmer lineages. So, in that topic, if a person reviews their post and it's not about breeding a Shimmer lineage, then that's a good time not to post it.

 

However, I definitely agree with Nectaris that the News threads have extremely vague standards and that's definitely one of the areas that the rules could be more defined.

 

Look, to be frank, sometimes making sure that your always on topic is time consuming, it means you can't say a whole bunch of interesting things you'd like to, and the fun aspect can definitely suffer. However, lots and lots of people are managing it, so it's a doable thing not to get a whole bunch of warns all the time.

 

And I think that's the best argument for change right there - it probably shouldn't have to be so much work to be on a forum and not get warned. A person who owns a forum certainly has the right to say, "You have to do X to be able to have posting privileges", and, again, people are doing that every day here. Those rules may feel like a burden rather than an assurance that things will run smoothly and be more enjoyable, but that's not an excuse to not follow those rules (even when it's rather arduous) when people feel that they're pointless or that they're getting warned to much. It is, however, certainly reason for a good discussion on maybe more creative ways to keep order.

 

I also agree with Nectaris that there should be broader topics. An idea has been kicked around before that maybe threads could have mods that have no real ability to do anything with the forum (like delete things or give warns), but would be willing to watch faster moving threads and report problems to mods. I've always thought that would be a good way to let us have on topic discussions even if the broadness of them made the thread move quickly.