[Cspace]

Many have been annoyed by leniency lately. This has been caused somewhat by my requirements in so many aspects of the site that I can't be on top of every situation (will not take action unless I know it is right). Also, it is not my nature to whip around punishments for things which personally I don't see as clan-breaking issues, but others disagree. With SMods given the ability to suspend over major things and GMods the ability to suspend for anything against the rules, will this solve the issues?

I'm just not one to go out of my way to bring anyone down, but since it's what everyone wants I'm willing to give them that ability if it makes things better in everyone's mind...

I know that there will be concerns regarding the SMods, but unfortunately it is either both SMods and GMods or neither right now. I won't hesitate to remove mod rights over abuse of this (and suspensions are easy to reverse), but ultimately it is up to the members. Please take this poll seriously.

Thank you

[Raktor]

No. Well... Star and MoS.. No offence, but they're a bit 'careful' of where they tread No-one will get suspended by them We need stricter rules, and to stick to them and not make exceptions for moderators or friends.

[ticktockclok]

Aye aye, to that, bro.

[Cspace]

No. Well... Star and MoS.. No offence, but they're a bit 'careful' of where they tread No-one will get suspended by them We need stricter rules, and to stick to them and not make exceptions for moderators or friends.

Do you even realize why we got rid of a few aspects of the old rules? Because without any judgement they cannot be fair unless you write a 30-page constitution to cover every single combinatination of situations, topics, extents, interactions, means, results, and histories. What we had was long, many didn't even want to read it, but it was nowhere near a complete and fair "program". It has to be treated like a program if that's the case. "If this happens, then do this". Nothing but a mess of "if statements", and any programmer knows that the more freedom you provide in a program the longer it becomes exponentially. Now with every single topic on the forums and potential situation, the list of "ifs" would be practically endless. To be fair, it would have to be complete.

Now, with what we had, the two-day bans about which you complained were a result of just that. "Harassment" and "provocation" can consist of minor situations, but can also encompass things which are more severe. Everyone who received that action (two days for a first offence) did something that fell into the "Harassment" category. Was it fair? No, it wasn't.

If the "program" is not complete with every single possibility, the rules must share situations. This means that someone could do something bad and someone could do something minor, and if it falls into the same category, it would result in the same punishment. Someone could say a sentence accidentally and result in a suspension for potentially weeks, while someone could say something very obviously malicious and receive a two-day suspension. Without judgement there is nothing you can do about it, you can't shift things around and create exceptions.

That, along with the concentration of new situations and a dense atmosphere, is why we ammended the rules to include judgement for a few specific sections such as flaming. This way action can be determined based on the severity, not the category.

The majority of the clan agrees, we had a poll a while back about it when we changed the rules. We are not going back to a strictly rule-based system, we will keep judgement over certain issues so it can be fair. We are not going to replace "severity" with "categories" in anything in the realm of decency and maliciousness.

[Raktor]

The judgement will always be biased. If it's someone they like, oh, it can slip their mind, and if it's someone they hate, maybe a one week ban?

[Cspace]

The judgement will always be biased. If it's someone they like, oh, it can slip their mind, and if it's someone they hate, maybe a one week ban?

With more than one able to handle suspensions, the one who feels that it should be severe would probably be the one to "win" because he/she would do it first. One mod could be biased, but would every single one be biased?

[Baseballl]

I have a comment about being biased -

I believe that about 95% of the members that complain about a punishment being biased is just an excuse to get out of it or to make people think something else. Lets say I totally hate Cspace (not really, just an example) and he goes on a cussing marathon and flames everyone, then I ban him. He could say it is biased because I don't like him (example) and possibly get out of punishment.

For the average buck to read - Being biased is mostly an excuse just to get out of something.

[Goto]

If all Smods were given freedom to suspend over what they thought was just, I'd have to disagree with this policy. Not because I don't think the Super Mods are a great bunch of people, but simply because it's too large a group of people. Too many Chefs spoil the broth, so to say. Giving the Smods some specific situations means that in an emergency they have the power necessary, but only have limited ability as to when to use that power.

The Gmods are a much smaller group, and are generally those that won't jump into a situation unless they know the situation anyway. It's like cloning Cspace so that he can be in more places at once, and see more of what is going on. Plus the original Cspace can still review all the suspension records, review the situations and reverse anything that was biased.

Base, I have seen a lot of what you talk about. However I have also seen people being biased, usually due to a situation that has happened in the past. I think we've all kept a grudge for what somebody else has done at some stage, I know I have. Moderators are always going to be human, it's hard to avoid this completely. So while many of these claims of 'bias' may simply be a way to avoid punishment, it's important to keep an eye on things to avoid the other sort slipping through. People change, once a situation is over and done with they shouldn't be held to stricter standards and rules forevermore because of that, until they make one slip-up in front of a group of people just waiting for that. The clan is slowly moving away from that kind of mentality, but we're not there yet.

[Dragonman]

Suspending is just for major things that need to be stopped right away. Like someone posting viruses, porn, flooding, etc.. Gmods suspending shouldn't count as a punishment in my opinion. Why? It's just so that we can keep things off the board when an admin isn't online. Anyone in a conflict shouldn't get suspended/banned in my opinion. Just try talkin' to him to help solve it on AIM, PMS, washever. Practically all of the time that's how conflicts are solved. But if someone is in a conflict and will not stop fighting and is flaming the baords up they could deserve a suspension so that the boards stay clean. Most people have enough sense to just stop after they vent.

[Raktor]

Suspending is just for major things that need to be stopped right away. Like someone posting viruses, porn, flooding, etc.. Gmods suspending shouldn't count as a punishment in my opinion. Why? It's just so that we can keep things off the board when an admin isn't online. Anyone in a conflict shouldn't get suspended/banned in my opinion. Just try talkin' to him to help solve it on AIM, PMS, washever. Practically all of the time that's how conflicts are solved. But if someone is in a conflict and will not stop fighting and is flaming the baords up they could deserve a suspension so that the boards stay clean. Most people have enough sense to just stop after they vent.

You wouldn't DARE to ban someone posting porn!

And yeah, a lot of guys here need to fix their PMS *Chuckle*