This just occurred to me when reading over the thread again (some threads I read over several times to make sure I'm straight on what's in it ).
I think that when the community steps up to moderate themselves, they should have the implicit support of the actual moderators. So if person A and person B start fighting, and non-moderator C gives them a warning post, the moderator that shows up doesn't have to warn before acting. Person C already warned them.
So when folks step up to make their own warnings and whatever else is considered the community self-moderating, you guys should make sure you're *also* interpreting and following whatever moderator guidelines are there. If you're somehow missing the mark, I'm sure a moderator will be happy to politely, and probably privately, let you know.
If it gets a problem, I think 'don't spam' applies. Like, creating sock puppet accounts to agree with yourself. Or circumvent a temporary account ban to be annoying some more. I don't think we should outlaw multiple accounts outright.
cause they don't hurt anyone (as long as you don't do one of the things Z-Man mentioned).
i have one so i can include the authorities.cfg for the ladle while i dont need to worry that i also change the access_level of Word@forums to "team leader"...i just login with my other one and change it back to owner when i forgot to do that before (and that happened lots of times already)
btw, it's a miracle that nobody abused the modlist account yet.
and if someone creates two accounts here, he can always say one of them is his brothers'/cousins' etc...
Word wrote:cause they don't hurt anyone (as long as you don't do one of the things Z-Man mentioned).
i have one so i can include the authorities.cfg for the ladle while i dont need to worry that i also change the access_level of Word@forums to "team leader"...i just login with my other one and change it back to owner when i forgot to do that before (and that happened lots of times already)
btw, it's a miracle that nobody abused the modlist account yet.
and if someone creates two accounts here, he can always say one of them is his brothers'/cousins' etc...
Am I missing something becasue I didn't understand a thing in you first paragraph
Are the accounts on here linked to something else ?
subby: yes, they're linked by way of armathentication to the game itself, so it makes sense in certain situations for people to have multiple accounts here.
in short: go to a server and type/make an instant chat for "/login yourname@forums" without the quotes, type your password when you're asked for it and press enter. the server knows who you are and you may have certain privileges - when you're logged in as server owner/admin you can change the settings for example - but someone needs to configure your access level before. in the ladle tournament, team captains should have teamleader rights. therefore, we have an authorities.cfg with the Global IDs - the yourname@forums-stuff - of all team captains set to 7 so they have team leader rights. they can start a new match and lock their teams. But when i include this file in our own fort server my owner rights are gone and i downgrade myself
edit: dang, lucifer was faster. ignore the text i wrote above.
in short: go to a server and type/make an instant chat for "/login yourname@forums" without the quotes, type your password when you're asked for it and press enter. the server knows who you are and you may have certain privileges - when you're logged in as server owner/admin you can change the settings for example - but someone needs to configure your access level before. in the ladle tournament, team captains should have teamleader rights. therefore, we have an authorities.cfg with the Global IDs - the yourname@forums-stuff - of all team captains set to 7 so they have team leader rights. they can start a new match and lock their teams. But when i include this file in our own fort server my owner rights are gone and i downgrade myself
edit: dang, lucifer was faster. ignore the text i wrote above.
Lucifer wrote:subby: yes, they're linked by way of armathentication to the game itself, so it makes sense in certain situations for people to have multiple accounts here.
Right, I feel sucha noob lol
OK it makes sense to have more than one account here.
I personally don't have a problem with the moderation on the forums, but since this topic came up...
Before an answer to "What do you expect from your moderators?" can be given, I think there should be an answer to "What is expected from forum members?" Has that already been answered? If so, a lot of this post can be disregarded.
I'm not deeply involved with the Arma forums, so it seems to me the only universally applied "rules" that are consistently enforced are the "F" word restriction (system-moderated) and spam prohibition (system/moderator-moderated). All other moderation is arbitrarily applied by individual moderators based on their ideas of what is acceptable or not. All other codes of conduct are assumed to be understood by forum members.
Concord's right, ideally idiots shouldn't act idiotically on the forums. But that just doesn't happen. Sometimes they don't even know they're doing something wrong. This is the only forum I actually frequent, so I probably make sillyass breaches of conduct. I might even be pissing someone off by posting this right now and I wouldn't even know why.
Generally, how the forum is moderated should be agreed upon (at least by the moderators themselves), consistent, and stated somewhere. Otherwise, no one can expect anything since the word directly relates to something that is consistently predictable. The disagreements I've read through on this thread seem to reflect inconsistency. I take it moderating isn't an easy task. Maybe it is, I wouldn't know. I do know that some people don't like rules, order, organization, etc. and that they don't want to force anything onto others. However, if there really is some ambiguity of how efficiently the forums are being moderated, then it might be helpful to do so. At least draft a statement of what is expected of members, who the moderators are, and what they can do (which Lucifer pointed out at the beginning of this topic). Rules, guidelines, whatever... It could even be as simple as a link to a third party page describing common problems on forums and how to avoid them.
Personally, I expect moderators to simply and objectively point people in the right direction and keep things organized without affecting content. ALL of the rest should be left to the forum members to handle.
I find it funny that posts like these remain unwarned and untouched:
Phytotron wrote:And we hate you. Not the English or the UK as a whole, because that would be irrational and petty (sort of like elevating the significance of a ball game over a country's independence from colonialism). No, we just hate you, Liz. And not motivated by some absurd xenophobia, narcissism, or sociopathy, but because you, individually, are a rotten human being.
And a post like this one:
Deadmau5 wrote:Call the police? I'm a sociopath remember, I'll kill them all!
These admins obviously have a boner for Phytotron. Perhaps it is time the admins here raise his level to [+1 WARNING LEVEL]. Seems as though the people who registered on this forum prior to 2005 get some sort of special treatment, but I could be wrong.
Is this a threat??
Phytotron wrote:Can someone just euthanise noob_saibot, please?
Deadmau5 wrote:I find it funny that posts like these remain unwarned and untouched: [...]
And a post like this one [...] gets removed.
That was me. It's about who I expect better from. At this point will all know how Phytotron acts, and he is consistent in it. But you Deadmau6, that post had flame bait written all over it and I would have expected better from you.
).
