80 section drama - 16th jan 2012

[Nesyla]

Yeah I guess I should just cheat it and give myself a few thousand through my wizardly admin powers

That would be the most wise decision, or you could simply take a few thousand off Falkor.

 

[CIHC]

I picked the best time to work 16 hour weeks. /sarcasm

 

[Aelobin]

Thanks for addressing my concerns, Kore. No doubt my opinions will be at least a slight bit biased due to the 2 people involved being friends of mine, but hopefully that won't completely discredit the points I've made.

Let me start by saying that neither member was permanently banned, they were indefinitely banned which is different in that it means that they have the chance to appeal.

My bad then. What I had been told was that they were both IP banned, which I assumed was equivalent.

Both members created threads (be advised that you may not be aware of all the posts/threads since non staff cannot view deleted or unapproved posts) that fall well into the category of spam by the CoC and were designed to be antagonistic, they both also replied to and exacerbated the situation through spam and insultive posts.

There was definitely a lot of posts, but from what I saw only a very small handful (if any) of those posts were intended to be directly insultive, and only 2 new threads were actually made (the "chat" thread and the ventrilo one). If you put the sudden influx of posting aside, I'm interested to know what portion of the new posts were genuine additions to threads, and how many were just "spam" as defined by the CoC. Bare in mind, it could be quite easy to take the tone of many posts in that section as being "antagonistic".

The members actions were not equal and the actions of Magnerz were less acceptable than those of Lunsh. Neither were acceptable however.

I agree that neither of their actions were acceptable, yet they both received the same punishment for what I would class as a considerable difference in behaviour (from what I observed). I understand you have your own policies to uphold, but was the severity of Lunsh's participation really as bad as it has been described?

It is obviously a matter of opinion as to what is a "fun" post and what is damaging to the forum, however due to the nature of many of the posts (strictly negative) the rest all take on that tone to a reader which makes the whole lot negative.

Indeed. Spam isn't fun and low activity isn't either (with the former being a far lot worse), so it's important to find the right balance.

They were given the severity of the ban however because of the repeated nature of the offences, complete lack of respect for the forum and their unwillingness to stop when issued a cease and desist order.

Whilst it's quite possible that they're lying (although I highly doubt they are as they have nothing to lose now), both have told me they received no such orders prior to their bans.





I'm not expecting anything to happen as a result of this thread, I'm just happy to be able to discuss the moderation process to clear a few things up.

 

[Nesyla]

Thanks for addressing my concerns, Kore. No doubt my opinions will be at least a slight bit biased due to the 2 people involved being friends of mine, but hopefully that won't completely discredit the points I've made.



My bad then. What I had been told was that they were both IP banned, which I assumed was equivalent.



There was definitely a lot of posts, but from what I saw only a very small handful (if any) of those posts were intended to be directly insultive, and only 2 new threads were actually made (the "chat" thread and the ventrilo one). If you put the sudden influx of posting aside, I'm interested to know what portion of the new posts were genuine additions to threads, and how many were just "spam" as defined by the CoC. Bare in mind, it could be quite easy to take the tone of many posts in that section as being "antagonistic".



I agree that neither of their actions were acceptable, yet they both received the same punishment for what I would class as a considerable difference in behaviour (from what I observed). I understand you have your own policies to uphold, but was the severity of Lunsh's participation really as bad as it has been described?



Indeed. Spam isn't fun and low activity isn't either (with the former being a far lot worse), so it's important to find the right balance.



Whilst it's quite possible that they're lying (although I highly doubt they are as they have nothing to lose now), both have told me they received no such orders prior to their bans.



I'm not expecting anything to happen as a result of this thread, I'm just happy to be able to discuss the moderation process to clear a few things up.

The threads done by Lunsh where 4 in total and not 2, two different chat and two different ventrilo ones.

As i already said, there is no reason for the overall community to accept such beheviour just because it brings some " activity " and regardless of most of them being " insultive " it does not matter, spam is spam, regardless if it's offensive or not, both of them considered the 80's forums as a playground where to have fun, and it is not the case, it was a lack of respect to the whole community and denigratory to the staff all that works hard to make this a well known place for mature twink discussions.



I started a soft delete process about 35 minutes before Kore managed to stop them completely, and regardless of me removing the posts and the threads they kept making new ones and actually provoking with posts such as :

1. You will not stop us.
   
2. It was fun, we will do it again.
   
3. Oh look moderators woke up.
   
4. You cant stop us from doing what we want.
   

In fact we did stop them, it was not fun, we all have a life and cant be safeguarding the website 24/24 considering that this is a no profit job.



And yes, moderators do not stop community members from doing what they want as long as they follow the CoC and do not lack respect to the whole staff and Community.



Oh and one last thing, sending a message to a Moderator : " psssssst, i'm still here " is not very smart and does not help their position.

 

[Splosion]

Despite the severity of the situation, given the volumes of "spam" that was posted, and what you have given here (I only saw some of it, and only remember 1-2 posts with similar names, perhaps you deleted the ones I didn't see, did you not consider that (Like what Feaire said, at least one of them was drunk) it may have been cause by some external source (In this case alcohol)? At the time it might have seen like they were completely ignoring the rules (which is, in the most part true), but the following day, may not have responded quite as such? I'm sure a little cool-down time might be of use, although as Kore said, they are welcome to "appeal" as such.



Just seems to me that it might have frustrated one or more moderators, resulting in a slightly more harsh (despite the severity of the issue) for what appears (at least to me) as a first offense.

 

[Nesyla]

Despite the severity of the situation, given the volumes of "spam" that was posted, and what you have given here (I only saw some of it, and only remember 1-2 posts with similar names, perhaps you deleted the ones I didn't see, did you not consider that (Like what Feaire said, at least one of them was drunk) it may have been cause by some external source (In this case alcohol)? At the time it might have seen like they were completely ignoring the rules (which is, in the most part true), but the following day, may not have responded quite as such? I'm sure a little cool-down time might be of use, although as Kore said, they are welcome to "appeal" as such.



Just seems to me that it might have frustrated one or more moderators, resulting in a slightly more harsh (despite the severity of the issue) for what appears (at least to me) as a first offense.

Why would we consider and make an exception for people because they are drunk ? Do you think that anyone, say the police, will make an exception for you because you where drunk ?



If you are drunk and spend your night posting it aint our fault and to be honest there is no eason why we should consider it.

 

[Splosion]

Why would we consider and make an exception for people because they are drunk ? Do you think that anyone, say the police, will make an exception for you because you where drunk ?



If you are drunk and spend your night posting it aint our fault and to be honest there is no eason why we should consider it.

You missed my part about first offense. It was severe, but not offensive. simply large in volume. In this case you usually end up with a warning (temp ban), rather than a prison sentence (a permanent one). I was merely making a personal observation, no need to act like you did, as if I had personally offended you.



That aside, I can't change rules here, I'm just stating that (in my last sentence), I felt it a bit harsh for what seemed the first occurance, but I can't change what has been done.

 

[Nesyla]

You missed my part about first offense. It was severe, but not offensive. simply large in volume. In this case you usually end up with a warning (temp ban), rather than a prison sentence (a permanent one). I was merely making a personal observation, no need to act like you did, as if I had personally offended you.



That aside, I can't change rules here, I'm just stating that (in my last sentence), I felt it a bit harsh for what seemed the first occurance, but I can't change what has been done.

You might want to re-read what has been said by Kore, here is a quote.

Let me start by saying that neither member was permanently banned, they were indefinitely banned which is different in that it means that they have the chance to appeal. I have privately contacted both of them by email inviting them to appeal the ban if they wish. The fact that neither have replied and that both of them attempted to circumvent their ban did not help their case however. They can still contact me if they wish however.

 

[Splosion]

A indefinite ban isn't the same. It's the prison sentence with the right to appeal. A temp ban is the warning. That's how I see it at least.



But as I said, what is done is done. I'm only stating my opinion, nothing more.

 

[Aelobin]

and regardless of most of them being " insultive " it does not matter, spam is spam, regardless if it's offensive or not

I wasn't the one who originally brought up the point about whether the posts were insultive or not. I was merely correcting something that was inaccurately used as a counter-arguement, not using it to try justify their actions.

spam is spam

At what point does relevant/useful posts become spam? A lot of the posts I saw reappearing were because you were deleting genuine posts.

A nice example would be this post. Is that useful? I'm pretty sure a decent portion of Magnerz's posts contributed more value than a single emoticon.

Whilst it's quite possible that they're lying (although I highly doubt they are as they have nothing to lose now), both have told me they received no such orders prior to their bans.

This point has been completely ignored again.

 

[CIHC]

:| Inc post in 8 hours.

 

[saxxon]

SEEMS TO ME WHEN THE GOING GET TOUGH THE TOUGH GET GOING!



level 80 is REALLY a bracket? i though it was a myth

 

[Nesyla]

I wasn't the one who originally brought up the point about whether the posts were insultive or not. I was merely correcting something that was inaccurately used as a counter-arguement, not using it to try justify their actions.



At what point does relevant/useful posts become spam? A lot of the posts I saw reappearing were because you were deleting genuine posts.

A nice example would be this post. Is that useful? I'm pretty sure a decent portion of Magnerz's posts contributed more value than a single emoticon.



This point has been completely ignored again.

There is a difference betwen a single emotion post and 158 ones.

Creating two different new accounts as both of them did can answer to your quote, a ban is a warning and they refused to stop as they both created new accounts going against another point of the CoC.



Let's get facts straight, yes i posted 1 emotion, is it usefull ? No it's not. But as i said, we ( CL's ) are just the same as anyone else and i really dont see why we should be investigated nor judged for a single post that was made in a relaxed situation.



Magnerz and Lunsh posted 158 posts Feaire, there is a huge difference betwen an emotion ( 1 post ) and 158 posts of both of them basicly talking to each other like i would do with a guild member of mine in a whisper, spending 10 of them just argueing on how " cute " some other ex guildie was and how " op " or " mean " someone else was.



I have stated it enought times now, these forums are not ment to be taken as a playground.

 

[Splosion]

Let's get facts straight, yes i posted 1 emotion, is it usefull ? No it's not. But as i said, we ( CL's ) are just the same as anyone else and i really dont see why we should be investigated nor judged for a single post that was made in a relaxed situation.

There has been more than 1 post with the same amount of usefulness. You tell us that PMs are there for similar reasons.

 

[Nesyla]

There has been more than 1 post with the same amount of usefulness. You tell us that PMs are there for similar reasons.

Which ones are you talking about now Splosion ?



There was no discussion being on betwen me and a particular member, we did not post a whole discussion who could have been handled thru private message.



There is no possible way to compare such thing with what happened that night, from an objective point of view.

 

[Splosion]

Which ones are you talking about now Splosion ?



There was no discussion being on betwen me and a particular member, we did not post a whole discussion who could have been handled thru private message.



There is no possible way to compare such thing with what happened that night, from an objective point of view.

I wasn't just talking about that thread. Non-constructive posts in general, "Banter" as it might be put.

 

[Nesyla]

I wasn't just talking about that thread. Non-constructive posts in general, "Banter" as it might be put.

I might be wrong but it seems that this conversation has turned into a personal issue, if you find any post as in not appropriate there is a report button and i higly encourage you to use it, it being a Community Leader, a Moderator or an Administrator.

 

[Eliot]

I think this matter has recieved plenty of public discussion, it is quite obvious by now why they were banned and may be banned for an extended period of time due their behaviour and for cirumventing their bans. If you wish to discuss the matter futher there is no need to do it here. Personal conversation are meant to be kept in private messages, thank you.

 

[Kore nametooshort]

Quite. If you have anything else to add then contact me through a PM. I do have a few final points to make however.

Whilst it's quite possible that they're lying (although I highly doubt they are as they have nothing to lose now), both have told me they received no such orders prior to their bans.

As I have told Lunsh, I was mistaken in thinking that he had violated a cease and desist. Magnerz however did. I do not consider a cease and desist to have to have been formalised for it to be valid, as far as i am concerned if the message is understood then it is valid. I consider Magnerz to have been issued one which he subsequently violated in that he deliberately created threads criticising Nesyla's moderation and he recreated a closed thread whilst acknowledging that it had been closed due to spam.

A indefinite ban isn't the same. It's the prison sentence with the right to appeal. A temp ban is the warning. That's how I see it at least.

That is a poor analogy. An indefinite ban has the potential to be equal or even less punishing than a temporary ban. On this site you can receive a temp ban of up to 2 weeks (it can technically go higher but that rarely happens) whereas an indefinite ban can be lifted at any time. In this instance I have reduced Lunsh's to a total of 5 days. Magnerz still has yet to contact me.

At what point does relevant/useful posts become spam?

A good question. This is always open to interpretation which is one reason why I try to keep the number of full moderators low on the site. With fewer moderators there is more consistency between the moderation of incidents. This is why we have people like Nesyla on our staff. They fill a role that is just as vital as any that the moderators themselves do, they are our eyes and ears enabling the moderators to find and deal with incidents. The Community Leaders are instrumental in increasing the consistency of moderation. Anywho, I disgress, in this case I think the line is fairly easy to place somewhere far behind the offending members. We are generally relatively lenient on posts that could fall into the spam category of the CoC because it would be both detrimental to the site to do so and its simply infeasible to find and moderate all the little posts. Nesyla puts it quite succinctly "There is a difference between a single emotion post and 158 ones". If the moderator thinks that the post is negatively affecting the forum then he will take action. If not then he will likely look the other way.

I wasn't just talking about that thread. Non-constructive posts in general, "Banter" as it might be put.

If you reread it you will find that "banter" is explicitly stated as being fine by the CoC as long as everyone is aware that it is friendly and that it could not be misconstrued by any party, involved or otherwise.