The PM History

Anything About Anything...
Locked
Goodygumdrops
Round Winner
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:39 am

Re: The PM History

Post by Goodygumdrops »

I'm just amazed at what is going on here.

Adequacy Style Troll:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/18/205013/523

I'm not surprised to see so many randoms get sucked into this, but Z-man and Lucifer? Seriously? Haven't you guys been around enough internets to know better?

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Word »

HEY GOODY!!!!!!!

Durf
Match Winner
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:35 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

Ratchet, please read the entire thread before you post in it; I've had to repeat too many times that Z-Man was the one that wanted this thread to exist.

If you don't want to have to see me raising concerns about moderator abuse, ask the moderators why I'm forced to do it in public threads where everyone will get pissed off (intentionally pissing people off because they should know better, they've been here long enough).

All in all, your assumptions are not appreciated and perpetuating stereotypes of me simply being "anal" is misplaced.

I'm, more or less, just asking a question. What the moderators (or perhaps you) find to be insulting about that is how you can't defend the actions they (your friends?) took. That frustration is not my fault. Like I said, I'm just asking a question so I can understand how things are run better.

All this being said, you aren't even using this thread for it's intended purpose; Z-Man demanded this history be posted to prove or disprove my claims that he was unreasonable - this has nothing to do with the old dispute.
Please, ratchet, wtf...(maybe you need to learn to let go of the erroneous idea that I'm out to ruin these forums with my posts)





@goodygumdrops: the implied name-calling is unappreciated. Have you ever considered that even someone that may appear to be such a troll might actually be perfectly genuine? If there were less people like you, so quick to dismiss something you arbitrarily deem as trollish or otherwise unimportant, things might actually improve around here.
Though, I'm surprised to see that you've managed to make a completely worthless contribution to the thread; and after everything Z-Man expected for you, the community..

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Word »

Image

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Vogue »

How do restriction orders work on the internet?

Gonzap
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Gonzap »

At this point I think Durf will never let it go. My solution:

Ban both Durf and Lucifer for a week, if after a week they didn't drop it (note here that if one of them did not drop it and the other did only apply the punish for one of them), if it's durf who didn't drop it, ban him indefinitely or erase every post he makes about this matter on the future. If it's Lucifer who doesn't drop it or he still makes dumb posts about himself being funny/any other reason just to trigger the reactions of the ones against him, insulting the users, holding grudges or making us uncomfortable then remove Lucifer of his moderator position so we can ignore him as any other user and not looking up to him. If none of them drop it then apply both punishments. Also erase every post Vogue (or others like the sock puppet users, or the maldor guy that only insults people or really anyone that posts just to insult others) does to trigger more reactions from these 2 (because she will, she's the only winner of all of this).

I am tired of this. I have seriously thought about leaving the rest of the forums and only pay attention to the competition's subforum. This has blown way out of proportion.

Goodygumdrops
Round Winner
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:39 am

Re: The PM History

Post by Goodygumdrops »

Durf wrote:@goodygumdrops: the implied name-calling is unappreciated. Have you ever considered that even someone that may appear to be such a troll might actually be perfectly genuine? If there were less people like you, so quick to dismiss something you arbitrarily deem as trollish or otherwise unimportant, things might actually improve around here.
Though, I'm surprised to see that you've managed to make a completely worthless contribution to the thread; and after everything Z-Man expected for you, the community..
I'm not being quick or arbitrary. I've read plenty of your posts. Succinctness is a virtue. Don't hide behind the excuse that you need so many words to convey your meaning. Learn to say much with few words.



On a completely unrelated topic, is there a way to ignore users on these forums?

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by Lucifer »

Goodygumdrops wrote: On a completely unrelated topic, is there a way to ignore users on these forums?
The foe list.

If your foe posts, you'll see a line saying so, but their avatar and stuff will be hidden. And a link is provided allowing you to read that post, if you want.
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

Venijn
Round Winner
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Venijn »

wap wrote:lol

aint nobody got time for this shit

This.

Also Durf, you make so many assumptions in your post it's amusing. You're a hypocrite. I do have my own opinion, formed by trying to read all this tedious bullshit. You were the wronged party, now you are just plain wrong.

Also, I did see you talking to another player in a server, that's what actually made me start reading this in the first place this weekend - because you mentioned the 96 hour terms and asked the player to participate in the thread so it doesn't look like everyone disagrees with you.) I'm sure you know better than I do though. My eyes deceive me.
Click. Image

User avatar
Ratchet
Match Winner
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:55 am
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by Ratchet »

Durf wrote:Ratchet, please read the entire thread before you post in it; I've had to repeat too many times that Z-Man was the one that wanted this thread to exist.

If you don't want to have to see me raising concerns about moderator abuse, ask the moderators why I'm forced to do it in public threads where everyone will get pissed off (intentionally pissing people off because they should know better, they've been here long enough).

All in all, your assumptions are not appreciated and perpetuating stereotypes of me simply being "anal" is misplaced.

I'm, more or less, just asking a question. What the moderators (or perhaps you) find to be insulting about that is how you can't defend the actions they (your friends?) took. That frustration is not my fault. Like I said, I'm just asking a question so I can understand how things are run better.

All this being said, you aren't even using this thread for it's intended purpose; Z-Man demanded this history be posted to prove or disprove my claims that he was unreasonable - this has nothing to do with the old dispute.
Please, ratchet, wtf...(maybe you need to learn to let go of the erroneous idea that I'm out to ruin these forums with my) posts
I'm appalled at how incapable you are of reading, and yet you insult everyone else for being 'lazy, average readers'. Seriously. You cannot possibly read everything that everyone posts about you and still be this ignorant.

incoming post about how my previous statement is making assumptions and that I need proof
Ratchet wrote:I'm really busy with college and things so I usually end up reading the forums once every 2-3-4-10 days or whatever.
You think I have time to sift through all your bullshit? It's finals week for me, get over yourself. No, I don't have time to read a 15 paper argument. If I did, I'd be in law school right now instead of pursuing an engineering degree.

I'm very well aware that Z-man instructed you to post this thread. I've expressed my opinion on the matter: you should be banned. With every post, I'm hoping for longer and longer. My opinion was generated based upon EVERY OTHER POST I've seen around here with your incessant bickering and nit-picking posts to generate arguments. I used this thread to do what I felt it was intended for: to express that Z-man is right and you are wrong.

Believe me, I know: for my opinion to be any kind of valid I need to sit at my laptop and write a considerable wall of text outlining his rights and exactly how he acted within each one of them.
Durf wrote:All in all, your assumptions are not appreciated and perpetuating stereotypes of me simply being "anal" is misplaced.
My only response to this: http://forums3.armagetronad.net/search. ... uthor=Durf

There are apparently enough posts to merit FOUR PAGES of responses outlining how people are making assumptions about you. Clearly, this is your crutch. No one knows anything about you, so we're not good enough to criticize you.

Durf wrote:What the moderators (or perhaps you) find to be insulting about that is how you can't defend the actions they (your friends?) took.
No, actually, I don't find that insulting. I completely agree with the actions they took. Never in my mind was I attempting to defend their actions. Was that what this post was for? Oops. I thought it was a thread for us to come after your head and sentence you to life imprisonment. Oh well, there's always next thread. Z-man was NOT unreasonable.



Finally, my turn!
Durf wrote:Please, ratchet, wtf...(maybe you need to learn to let go of the erroneous idea that I'm out to ruin these forums with my) posts
Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? Did you just call me... 'ratchet'? I will NOT stand for this. How dare you insult me? You're making the disgraceful assumption that my name isn't worth being capitalized. Do you think I'm below you or something? That's an abuse of powers, you know that right? How dare you abuse the ability to press (or not press) the shift key when typing the 'R' in my name? Are you serious? I'm filing for user abuse right now. RIGHT THIS SECOND. I'm PMing Lucifer, because he's my favorite admin. He'll ban you for sure.
Image
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

User avatar
Ratchet
Match Winner
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:55 am
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by Ratchet »

Also, this:
Durf wrote:Ratchet, please read the entire thread before you post in it; I've had to repeat too many times that Z-Man was the one that wanted this thread to exist.
Venijn wrote:Also Durf, you make so many assumptions in your post it's amusing. You're a hypocrite. I do have my own opinion, formed by trying to read all this tedious bullshit. You were the wronged party, now you are just plain wrong.
To demonstrate how you're a hypocrite, since you'll need proof:
*16 wrote:On some pages the left and right margin disappears and messages ignore the right margin which leads to horizontal scrolling. An example below of different pages in the same topic. (Using Safari 8.0.3)
I don't think this behaviour is wanted, it's not really important, but I was just wondering if it could be fixed easily. If not: ignore this.
Durf wrote:Which version of safari are you using? (help > about) I'd like to get the same version running so I can better test it.
*16 wrote:I already mentioned in the first post that I'm using 8.0.3, which is the latest stable version available.
Durf wrote:Yea, well I'm in chrome and it doesn't happen. So you're right, it IS browser based.
*16 wrote:I can also reproduce the same problem on Chrome.
Durf, a hypocrite making assumptions without reading the whole thread? That... must be impossible.
Durf wrote:Though I think perhaps you got the page numbers mixed up, because I got the opposite effect at a lower resolution. (page 1 <=> page 6)
Yeah, you're right actually. Just kidding. Just because YOU can't get the same results, his bug report is invalid? Why do you assume that he can't properly see page numbers? Asshole.

Edit: please don't bother spending an hour disarming this post. I'm only half kidding.
Image
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

User avatar
aP|Nelg
Match Winner
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by aP|Nelg »

/*ignore this post*/

User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11238
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne, Jabber: [email protected]
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by Z-Man »

Durf wrote:If you truly insist, I can post EVERYTHING (100% of the PMs sent to and from Z-Man/Durf) so that everyone can see our entire history of interactions.
That was part of my conditions from the start:
Z-Man wrote:- post the whole thing (every single PM between you and me from December 2014 to now), unedited, uninterrupted by running commentary.
My "hidden agenda": I think that what you sent to me in the last two messages is of importance for everyone. If you don't post them, I will, and only those (and my message in between them for continuity) so the community is not overly annoyed. If you think context for them matters, you post it. I don't mind much either way.

Whether or not your posts here are in violation of my conditions remains to be determined. I haven't even read the whole things yet.

And I am not avoiding any discussion, I am sticking to the 96 hour delay and definitely only making procedural comments until then.

Malachi
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Philly, PA, USA
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by Malachi »

As I said before I was snipped:

The way the users are reacting to this is unbelievable.

They act as though they haven't read the huge amount of text that Durf has posted (at the demand of Z-Man) which actually has some key parts which show Z-Man in a rather unreasonable manner.

My original post had something to do with how people were missing the point and somehow disregarding all the facts and explanations that Durf has said in the PMs.

From reading these I have come to my own conclusion that Z-Man was very unreasonable at the moment.

I don't quite understand why. Sure I could speculate that he's a power hungry tyrant but I just don't see that.

Well, it would be more than speculation since there are moments in the PMs in which Z-Man is obviously looking for ways to pin things on Durf.

Durf constantly says to stop trying to grab straws, or grab something minor and try to magnify in order seem like that Durf is purposely using sexist terms in some sort of twisted way.

I don't believe Z-Man has ever acted in such a way, or if he ever has in any point in time during the duration of the arma forums.

I suppose if Z-Man couldn't see things in Durf's perspective it would be best to leave it up to Tank Program.

Apparently Lucifer already has a track record when it comes to going overboard with his mod powers (something I didn't know of until someone said something about it)

I honestly think there ought to be some type of reform during the resolution of this dispute. I just hope the resolution ends in an agreement, apology, and possibly more developers for this game.
Last edited by Z-Man on Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Edit2: Changed my mind, I was wrong. While technically this user does not meet the minimal criteria, he can still post. I'd restore this post myself, but there's no undo :(
Image

User avatar
D33P
Average Program
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:20 am

Re: The PM History

Post by D33P »

A disclaimer before I begin:

Everything that I say are my own thoughts, and only those. I am not a sock puppet of Durf, nor is anyone else in the Fasttrack community. It was solely my decision to post on this topic; not Durf’s. I am not here to give support to Durf just because I know him well. I am here to offer my opinion on what is currently a divisive issue on these forums. I had limited my posting on this topic in the past because I felt this was something for Durf to sort out with the moderators by himself. However, since he and the moderators won’t be discussing this for the next 96 hours to give the community a chance to discuss, I am going to voice my opinion. If I thought Durf was in the wrong, I would tell him that, and try to convince him why; however, that is not the case.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The original purpose of this thread was to prove or disprove the claim that Zman was being unreasonable (literally meaning what he did lacked proper reasoning) and that he was incapable of going through a dispute as a moderator. I was planning on only addressing this, but since most of the recent posts revolve around how long this has taken/should have taken, I am going to get to those first.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Why is Durf even pursuing this any longer?

I think that I speak for everyone in that we all want this to get over with. Although some of you might think differently, Durf is not doing this just for the sake of arguing or to satisfy his ego. I’ve known him for some time, and the topics that he actively pursues in argument are ones that he feels are important and need to be resolved. He doesn’t argue over every little thing and try to make you agree with him about everything (although some of you see it that way). In this case, he sees a problem that is important and needs to be settled, so he tries his best to settle it.

Now to why he is still pursuing this. His main goal (IMO) is either 1. to get Zman and Lucifer to admit to their mistakes as moderators or 2. (if Zman and Lucifer don't admit) for the community to see how Zman and Lucifer are unreasonable and incapable moderators (which could potentially lead to action from the community if they see fit).

Now, you might say, why does he care so much about the moderators admitting their mistakes? You might be quick to think, because he loves/needs to be right! However, there is clear logic as to why Durf requires admittance to their mistakes:


If Zman and Lucifer admit to their mistakes → they will be able to learn from their mistakes and improve as moderators

If Zman and Lucifer don’t admit to their mistakes → they will not be able to learn from their mistakes (as the first step in fixing a problem is admitting that you have one), and thus will continue with their mistaken ways.


See, the real goal here is improvement of the forums through improvement of the mod staff. You might be satisfied with the current state of the moderators (I am not), but wouldn’t you prefer it if they improved? What if, in the future, you were unjustifiably banned. Wouldn’t you want to prevent that if you could, through reforms of the moderation staff? I know I would.

Durf’s posts are too long!

And I would agree with you - partially. While I see Durf’s posts as very logical and explanatory, I think that the length of his posts makes it hard for some readers to stay engaged, thus reducing the effectiveness of his argument to some users. This does not mean I think his posts should be shortened because he repeats himself constantly or because he is trying to “filibuster” someone else’s argument. He makes many valid points in his posts; however, the length of his posts reduces the effectiveness of his argument with some of the readers.

Others of you are devaluing what he says in his posts because they are too long. Consider this: A hypothetical user posts a 10 million word argument on a certain issue. Now, his post definitely lacks effectiveness, since most people don't have the time to read 10 million words. But does the length of his post directly affect the value of what he says? What if he was addressing 1 million different points in his 10 million word post? See, the length of the post does not affect the value of what he is saying, and you should not let the length of Durf’s posts devalue his argument in your mind.

Also, for those of you who complain about having to read his long posts because they are annoying, you have and always have had the option to not read his posts or any topic dealing with him. There is no reward for reading his posts (aside from gaining the knowledge of what Durf believes), which means that choosing to read his posts is entirely your fault and not his problem. Even if you are one of those “curious” people that feel a need to check out every post made on this forum, if you see a long post by Durf (or anyone else), simple hit the back button if you don’t like long posts.


Aside from that, I feel that Durf responded to the rest of the complaints in this thread as well as I could. As a reminder, this thread was Zmans idea, meaning any complaints about the continuation of this specific topic should be directed toward him, not Durf.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now onto the real purpose of this thread - Was Zman a responsible and capable moderator when dealing with Durf’s dispute?

No, and here’s why:

Favoritism
Zman wrote:Dude, we are discussing things internally. We want no input from anyone at this time. I'm trying to ignore the message because frankly, every time you say something, you are only digging your own hole deeper. And you don't even realize it. Established lingo? Don't establish that lingo. So please, for your own sake, stop.
And quit PMing Lucifer. I respect and will enforce his wish to be left alone. Is that so hard to understand? If you absolutely must PM someone (and you don't), leave it to Tank and me. Or epsy and dlh.
This was Zman’s first pm in response to Durf. In the first two sentences, he tells Durf that they are not accepting input from him regarding their discussions on what happened/what they should do about it.

This is already unjust and unfair. Why is Durf not allowed to give his side of the story in this situation, but Lucifer is? Lucifer is a mod, but that is irrelevant when he is directly involved in the events that are being disputed.

Consider a country where one judge makes the decisions in a court case (no jury). Say one day, Judge A allegedly commits an offense against a citizen. If this alleged offense were to go to trial, would it be fair/just for Judge B, the judge overseeing this case, to only hear the defenses case (Judge A’s case) and not the prosecution's case (the person who the alleged crime was committed against)? Even though Judge A is normally in a position to judge another person’s actions, when his own actions are called into question, he is not the one to help decide the outcome of the case. Because of this, there were two options that Zman could have taken that could be deemed fair:

1. Reject input from both Durf and Lucifer - This might not lead to the best decision (lack of information) but it would be fair to both sides, assuming Zman was an unbiased moderator.

2. Accept input from both Durf and Lucifer - This would be both fair and just, as he would be getting both sides of the story, akin to what would happen in a courtroom.

However, Zman decided to only allow Lucifer to input his opinion on the matter, which shows that he was unfair to Durf.

Along with what is above, Zman showed favoritism at several points in the pm chain. One of the most obvious sections where he showed this was when he was attempting to justify Durf’s ban by claiming he was harassing Vogue.*

/* Not directly related to the discussion about Zman, but important to mention nonetheless. The reason given for Durf’s ban by Lucifer was for “being a sexist ass”, not for harassing Vogue, thus the ban given by Lucifer is unjustified. */

If you read through what Durf wrote in response to Zman’s individual claims of harassment regarding what Durf said to Vogue, you can see that these were relatively weak attempts to justify Durf’s ban afterthefact. Consider these postings by Durf to Vogue, and Zman’s claims against them:
Zman wrote:
Durf wrote:You can make all the assumptions you want.
This sounds hostile and dismissive.
Zman wrote:
Durf wrote:I would understand if you decide not to even bother
(happens when trolls realize they screwed themselves over)
And insulting again.
Zmans claims against Durf’s statements are hardly accurate (as Durf explains in his response PM), but, considering they are allegedly bannable, become outrageous when you compare them to the things Vogue said to Durf, and was not banned for:
Vogue wrote:I see you're not man enough to speak to the person you're gossiping about. No problem, I expected no less.
Vogue wrote:I'm not reading all that shit. Are you still too scared to get on TS? Having ass burgers isn't an excuse unless you never leave your house to speak to people.
How was Durf banned for what he said, and Vogue not for what she said? Remember, even if you think Vogue should have also been banned and/or Durf should not have been banned,
Zman is saying Durf deserved his ban, while never saying that Vogue deserved a ban as well, meaning that what Durf said was somehow more “harassing” than what Vogue said. This is clear favoritism against Durf.

Unwilling to address evidence that Durf puts forth

*In reply to a long PM from Durf filled with his reasonings*
Zman wrote:Yes, I am replying only to what I want to, which is very little. Deal with it.
Durf wrote:
Zman wrote:No, stupid kid, that's not your mother, mothers need to be women and women don't have penises
You are making assumptions about me; which happens to be insulting.
No, that was not meant to be taken literally. Answer me: Is the person in question the child's mother?
Notice how Zman only replies to one relatively insignificant part of Durfs argument where Durf may have misunderstood what Zman was trying to say. Why didn’t he address any of the important arguments/reasonings that Durf put in his PM? Zman clearly read Durf’s PM since Zman was able to pick out this small section within Durf’s rather long PM and reply to it. If he had the time to read it and reply to part of it, why didn’t he respond to any other part of Durf’s argument?

Did he realize that he was wrong, and felt like ignoring the parts that showed he was wrong? If so, that means he was unreasonable. Did he not want to spend the time or energy responding to Durf’s arguments with the likelihood that Durf would respond back? If so, that means he was incapable of being a fair and just moderator, as he lacked the time and/or energy (the capability) to settle a dispute with Durf. Either way, this serves to prove Durf’s claim about Zman.

Unwilling to continue dispute
Zman wrote:None of the things you reference there are considered the reason for your ban.
You were the one banned. Not once in forum history has the banned ever considered their ban justified (Lucifer being the lone exception). Any private discussion between you and me about it is utterly pointless. I am not going to convince you.
Zman tries to justify his refusal to continue engaging Durf in his dispute by saying that everyone banned prior to Durf also felt that their bans were unjustified (and since many were clearly justified, Durf has no basis to argue with Zman about his potentially unjustified ban). This is logically flawed because it assumes that Durf feels his ban was unjustified solely because he is upset over being banned (which Durf makes clear that he feels he has solid reasoning for why his ban was unjustified).
Zman wrote:I'm not disputing with you. I was explaining. By treating it as a dispute, you set yourself up for failure to understand.
You put my honesty in doubt. I did not grasp at straws. I really went in neutral. I truly wrote the emotions I felt when reading your PM. You dismissed that. I'm sorry, I see no further basis for communication with you.
Here, Zman clearly states that he is unwilling to go through a full dispute with Durf. He tries to justify this by saying he was explaining his ban to Durf. Thing is, he offered up his thoughts to Durf without allowing Durf a chance to point out possible mistakes in Zmans thinking, such as the fact that Zman implied that Durf’s ban was based on emotions rather than the actual dictionary definitions of what Durf was saying.

Do you think it is right for someone to be banned due to the emotions a moderator was feeling at the time and not based on what was actually being said? Would you like it if you were unjustifiably banned, and the moderators would refuse to dispute your ban with you?


These were only some of my thoughts/ideas as I read through all of those PMs. Most of what Zman did was explained by Durf in the PMs themselves; I only highlighted what I thought were the most significant parts, and made it clear why something went wrong.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Final Thoughts (somewhat off-topic):

I feel that both Zman and Lucifer should admit that they were wrong to ban Durf/attempt to justify Durfs ban, and should apologize to Durf. Regarding their moderator positions, I feel that Zman, if he admits to his mistakes and is willing to change his approach to disputes, should be able to keep his moderator status, as he did not make a rash decision and ban someone. However, I feel that Lucifer should step down from his position as moderator, as his actions as moderator have shown to be, at times, purely emotional and out of spite (not going to go too off topic here by addressing that), which is far from the kind of person you want moderating what you and others post. Of course, it is up to Tank to decide what happens to Zman and Lucifer, as these are his forums.

However, the thing that I would encourage the most, are serious reforms regarding how these forums are run. First of all, the current list of forum user rules needs an overhaul. You can grumble on about how more rules take the fun out of things and lead to misapplications (which can be prevented through properly written rules). However, rules like “Don’t be an idiot” and “Treat others respectfully, like human beings” might work well in keeping the forums generally free of hate, but when actual disputes come up, they become utterly useless.

What does “being an idiot” mean in this case? Does it mean that it’s against the rules to generally lack intelligence? How much respect is needed to “treat others respectfully”? There are some pretty awful human beings on this planet, so what kinds of human beings should I use as my reference point?

And these are only some of the questions that these rules fail to answer. Another thing that these rules fail to do is say what the punishments for breaking these rules are. How much of an idiot do I have to be to be banned? How little respect do I have to give someone to get banned?

Which brings me to my strong recommendation for a guide/list of rules for moderators to use when moderating these forums. I understand that there is a topic dedicated to this here, but it was never finalized, and what I ask for would be much more procedural. For example, it would detail under what specific circumstances a moderator would be allowed to ban a user for, and for how long they could be banned for. It would detail the specific type of punishment for a specific type of offense. It would also detail how to handle a dispute with an upset user (ie would it be done in public or in PMs?). I feel this would greater reduce future confusion as to why someone was banned, and it would lead to a more fair and just forums, which is something I think everyone would appreciate.

Locked