Rules Determination

Have any bright ideas? Share and discuss them with the community

Moderators: Suggestions Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!

Re: Rules Determination

Postby jgordon1111 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:32 pm

Woodruff wrote:
eddie2 wrote:what gets me about the trolling baiting intentionally annoying thing is

if a player has you on foe and goes around the forums reading your posts making minor baits and other things in them this is okay. this should not be classed as ok it should come under one of the trolling intentionally annoying busts.


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You seem to be saying that if a player has you on foe (but reads your posts anyway) and continuing to bait you, this is currently treated as ok...is that what you mean?



I believe that is what eddie was saying, My clan has a similar issue with a player, almost everytime one of us posts, that person will pop in with a remark completely negative and proudly announce that the whole clan is foed. Thats is the pure definition of trolling and baiting.

But of late it has seemed to drop off somewhat. Maybe a clan leader stepped in and slowed their roll some.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant jgordon1111
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm
Medals: 41
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Woodruff on Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:03 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
deathcomesrippin wrote:Maybe the mods and admin should get together, and decide on how much of each kind of posting is cool with each group, and then relate it to the general public? In C&A, we have far less tolerance generally speaking for baiting and flaming, insomuch as we will lock a thread if it even looks like it could get carried away, but like tdg said in OT they can carry on a bit further than most others. At least for that part of the rules it might iron things out for people.


I think that makes sense in light of how those two forums operate. Off topics and Cheating and Abuse are very different places and are moderated by different people with different visions of what each forum should look like.


While I do admit that OT should be more lenient than the C&A regarding this sort of thing due to the disparate natures of the forums, I do dearly love how C&A is handled and really wish OT was closely similar. I also recognize that's just my personal opinion. <sigh>


It would be an unmitigated disaster.


We obviously disagree in that regard. <smile>
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4964
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:16 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I've collected more than a few examples during my short tenure as a moderator of how enforcing the rules in a certain way would end up killing a lot of stuff in the forum. I will refrain from posting them because they are specific examples. Put let me provide a fake example:

On Day One, User #1 creates a thread talking about some political issue. The premise involves a ridiculous assertion with tenuous evidence (User #1 does not agree with that observation, however). A discussion ensues.
On Day Two, User #2 creates a thread talking about a different political issue. The premise also involves a ridiculous assertion with tenuous evidence (User #2 does not agree with that observation, however). A discussion ensues.
On Day Three, User #1 reports User #2's thread as trolling or baiting because the premise involves a ridiculous assertion with tenuous evidence.

Is User #2 guilty of trolling? If so, and we ban him or her, does User #2 rightfully accuse us of inconsistency because we did not also ban User #1 for posting a thread with a ridiculous assertion based on tenuos evidence? And if we do ban both users, are people going to be less likely to post political threads (ignoring that a lot of users don't like political threads)?

This is one completely fake example. My concerns, as you may know, are that (1) we will be inconsistent and (2) we will stop participation on the forums. These issues are more concerning to me than whether User #1 doesn't happen to like User #2's thread which he is not forced to read or respond to.


Yes, but do you have any examples that were not inspired by pimpdave?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 4010
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby b00060 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:05 pm

I would pay $10 more dollars a year to have the ability to create games with a minimum rank. Maybe that would offset the multi income.
User avatar
Major b00060
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:35 pm
Location: Washington D.C.
Medals: 154
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Most Improved Silver (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4)
Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (4) Assassin Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4)
Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (4)
Teammate Achievement (4) Random Map Achievement (4) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (2)
Bot Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (25) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (14)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby jgordon1111 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:34 pm

Per woodruff's pm. I agree with the you about the rules being defined clearly. and the unilateral and equal use of them for everyone.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant jgordon1111
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm
Medals: 41
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby stahrgazer on Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:37 pm

Comments after each segment
Woodruff wrote:[*]It is clear that the site administration and moderation team are not interested in actually dealing with MASSIVE amounts of gross abuse of the game that are ongoing. The ranching seems to be rampant amongst the top ranks, and TeamCC seems perfectly satisfied with allowing it to continue, rather than consider it the gross abuse that it clearly is. These individuals who dedicate a strong majority of their games to abusing lower-ranking players for the points are not doing a service to the site, they are not doing anything that can actually help the site. They are, however, dissuading customers from returning...this has been shown many times within the C&A forum. The idea that forum violations are punished far more harshly than actual abuse of the game is makes it clear that the site is not interested in the reason paying customers are here. That's a poor strategy, from a financial standpoint. It is time for the site to decide either that they are going to get rid of the rule against this gross abuse of the game or they need to start actually enforcing it as the gross abuse that it clearly is. Does anyone actually think the severe "ranching" that is happening ISN'T a gross abuse of the intent of the game? The idea that this conduct is good for the site is laughable.

Agreed; have reported someone for doing this. The answer given was unsatisfactory; because they aren't "forced" to play with x who's "ranching" or because x "risks more points" it's okay.

So yeah, either enforce the rule or remove it as a rule.


Woodruff wrote:[*]There are certain individuals within the various fora, although particularly the Off-Topics forum, who seem to view their entire reason for existence to being intentionally annoying. In order to avoid calling out specific individuals, thus perhaps turning this suggestion into one that gets locked, I am more than happy to provide obvious examples to an administrator or moderator who may be interested, if any exist. If the blatantly and painfully obvious situations in which individuals are ONLY trying to be intentionally annoying are not going to be dealt with, then this guideline should be removed. It is time for the site to decide either that they are going to get rid of the guideline against this intentional annoyingness or they need to start actually dealing with it.

Personally, I don't think the guideline should apply in off-topics; most of the topics there are written to annoy something or someone... but everywhere else? Yeah, enforce or remove.

Woodruff wrote:[*]The idea that "only certain kinds" of bigotry are a problem is ridiculous. The community guidelines clearly state that bigotry includes racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia/sexual orientation bashing, religion bashing, lack of religion bashing, or wishing violence on any group of people, etc...and yet these very things are happening. In fact, I have specifically had discussions with moderators regarding these explicitly happening within the fora, and essentially been told to stop bothering them with it. In addition to these items, how is it acceptable to allow bigotry against the mentally retarded on this site? Why is calling someone a "nigger" more inflammatory or damaging than calling someone a "retard"? It is time for the site to decide either that they are going to get rid of the guideline against all bigotry or they need to start actually dealing with it consistently.

Obviously I agree, I used to babysit someone with Down's Syndrome, and find it extremely offensive, enough that I once reported someone for using that word with me.

Woodruff wrote:[*]According to the community guidelines, trolling is the intentional attempt to cause chaos and includes a great number of items such as if your post's intent was to provoke another user into an emotional response, to get under their skin or to otherwise piss them off, you're baiting them and don't flog a dead horse...if a discussion is over, it's over and FINALLY it states that there is little that is more annoying than a troll and that this will get you removed from the CC community quicker than almost anything else. Well that's just flat-out laughable. The concept of punishment for trolling in the fora of nonexistent. Trolling within the fora is rampant from a number of users. Again, in order to avoid this suggestion being locked, I am not going to name names. But the consistent posters within the fora can certainly point to blatant and painful examples of this. In some cases, it is endless. It is time for the site to decide either that they are going to get rid of the guideline against the very real cases of trolling or they need to start actually dealing with it.

It's not about what they said or didn't say, it's about who their friends are. Some mods happen to be some of the worst trolls but "it's okay, they weren't being a mod when they said it," has been the response when those things are reported (plus then you're on the shitlist for having dared report a buddybuddy)

Woodruff wrote:[*]The idea that the foe list is promoted as an actual fix to avoiding individuals with whom you do not want to play games on ConquerClub is ridiculous, given that the foe list does not even work properly in doing that. Stop promoting the foe list within the guidelines and otherwise when accepted suggestions to fix it have been sitting in the accepted list for nearly five years.

foelist as a preventive is especially horrid considering you have to leave a tournament if you refuse to unfoe someone who is foed for legitimate reasons.

Woodruff wrote:[*]The moderators cannot even be consistent within their handling of flaming. At times, a moderator will simply edit out a user's flame and at other times, the user will get hammered for it. It has become clear to me over time that this happens due to pure favoritism on the part of the moderation team individuals, and it is ridiculous. It is time for the site to decide either that they are going to get rid of the guideline against the very real cases of flaming or they need to start actually dealing with it consistently from case to case.

Yes; and again, sometimes it's the mods doing the flaming, but supposedly, "not acting as a mod" when they do it.

Woodruff wrote:[*]Why is written pornography acceptable on this site, but photographic pornography is not? When I have complained about instances of CLEAR written pornography on this site, I was told to "shut up about it and hopefully it will filter off the front page". Frankly, written pornography has the capability to be far more explicit than photographic pornography...given that minors use this site, it is time for the site to decide either that they are going to deal with all instances of very real cases of pornography or they need to start actually dealing with it consistently from case to case.

Agreed. Interestingly, you can get in trouble for posting a link to an adult site, even if the first page has no actual pornography on it, and has clear warnings. (I did it by accident, once, thinking I was making up a name that didn't exist, in response to a MOD saying pornographic things in livechat)

Woodruff wrote:[*]The moderation team can't seem to make up their mind on this one. In some cases, the use of a foreign language in game chat is immediately deemed to be against the rules. In some cases, the odd determination is made that "if it's not diplomacy, then it's not secret diplomacy"...which of course is a thoroughly illogical stance to take, given that if I don't understand the language, then how do I know if it's diplomacy or not? And if I can use a translator to figure out if it's diplomacy or not, then it's clearly NOT secret diplomacy, because all anyone has to do is run it through the translator. So make up your minds, moderators...find some consistency here and stop treating this issue based on whim and favoritism. If the moderators aren't even able to handle something as plainly simple as this with any consistency, how can they possibly be expected to handle the more difficult issues with any?

Also, translators do not always give the slang meanings for phrases, so even with a translator, if you do not know the language you may miss the "secret" meaning in the words.

Woodruff wrote:[*]The site claims that the first rule of the site is "no multis". But they don't actually do anything to discourage multis. In fact, it has become obvious that multis are generally considered a good thing by the site's ownership, because multis means more money since the only actually punishment for having a multi is to have to rebuy the premium. Thus, multis are obviously just a cash cow. They may line the pockets of the owner, but they do nothing to aid the site itself. In fact, recent determinations by the moderation team have found that it's perfectly acceptable to create a multi for the sole purpose of baiting other users. There is no punishment for the multi for this action...but they have a decent chance of getting their "target" a ban. This is a logical stance to take?


Interestingly enough, I'd consider that to be intentional trolling as well as multi-ing.

Woodruff wrote:[*]What I am essentially calling for here is enforcement of the alleged rules of ConquerClub with consistency and common sense (which appear to be lacking entirely) or getting rid of them entirely.

Agreed. Enforce or eliminate.

Woodruff wrote:[*]And finally, threads where the moderation team is legitimately being criticized are almost always locked once the thread gets to the point where it's clear the moderation team just wants to end the discussion because they realize they have no legitimate defense for their actions or statements. Sometimes, it happens almost immediately, never mind whether there may actually be a legitimate defense...they just don't want the issue discussed. I suppose you can fall back on the idea that "all complaints about the moderators are trolling" argument (this was a statement by King Achilles to me), but that would only work if you were actually doing something about trolling to begin with. This is a primary example of shitty customer service...in fact, it almost defines it. The real definition doesn't limit to just this though...a view of the Conquer Club administration and moderation teams does provide an outstanding example of shitty customer service. There is no question that Conquer Club is dying, and there is similarly no question as to why. Perhaps, if this suggestion is taken seriously, that can be corrected.


You missed something. You may be told by one mod, such as King Achilles, to address something in pm to the other mod, and when you do, you get banned because that other mod didn't want to hear it. Feels a bit like a setup sometimes. And yes, it is shitty customer service and it's a big part of why I've gone alot less active on the site, and didn't renew my membership. (I'm premie now only because someone gave me a gift as a surprise and it was re-upped automatically, I was not given an option to decline it and give it back to the person, so I peek in on my games once a day so his money isn't totally wasted.)

So, Woodrow, we don't always agree, but we agree at least in part on all your points, the main one being: be consistent. Either enforce for all or eliminate the rule so that anything on the list is at least consistently ignored.


Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
deathcomesrippin wrote:Maybe the mods and admin should get together, and decide on how much of each kind of posting is cool with each group, and then relate it to the general public? In C&A, we have far less tolerance generally speaking for baiting and flaming, insomuch as we will lock a thread if it even looks like it could get carried away, but like tdg said in OT they can carry on a bit further than most others. At least for that part of the rules it might iron things out for people.


I think that makes sense in light of how those two forums operate. Off topics and Cheating and Abuse are very different places and are moderated by different people with different visions of what each forum should look like.


While I do admit that OT should be more lenient than the C&A regarding this sort of thing due to the disparate natures of the forums, I do dearly love how C&A is handled and really wish OT was closely similar. I also recognize that's just my personal opinion. <sigh>


Since OT is supposed to operate under the same site rules, Woodruff, you're correct in thinking it should be. Or, have different rules for each forum, posted in that forum, so that everyone knows.
Image
User avatar
Major stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 56
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (7)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby squishyg on Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:01 pm

I really want to believe that this conversation could lead to positive change on CC, but the last time we tried accomplishing a massive guideline overhaul to address bigotry we ended up with an escalating ban system that delivers punishments for triforcing an empty Live Chat and silencing those who post 6 times in a day (on the same topic!!! G-d forbid).

Do we have any indication whatsoever that anyone is at all interested in what we think?
Last edited by squishyg on Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Visit CC on Facebook and Twitter!
Robinette wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?

Depends on what metric you use...
The coolest is squishyg
User avatar
Captain squishyg
 
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:05 pm
Medals: 42
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (4)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (1) General Contribution (4)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby whitestazn88 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:25 pm

this thread is tl;dr, but i scanned the first post.

good points, i don't think i need to add much more to the conversation.

but I did report the OP for using the n-word, which regardless of context, is a major infraction (at least for me, maybe the mods like you more), and is deserving of a ban.
Sergeant 1st Class whitestazn88
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: behind you
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (1)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby whitestazn88 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:28 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I've collected more than a few examples during my short tenure as a moderator of how enforcing the rules in a certain way would end up killing a lot of stuff in the forum. I will refrain from posting them because they are specific examples. Put let me provide a fake example:

On Day One, User #1 creates a thread talking about some political issue. The premise involves a ridiculous assertion with tenuous evidence (User #1 does not agree with that observation, however). A discussion ensues.
On Day Two, User #2 creates a thread talking about a different political issue. The premise also involves a ridiculous assertion with tenuous evidence (User #2 does not agree with that observation, however). A discussion ensues.
On Day Three, User #1 reports User #2's thread as trolling or baiting because the premise involves a ridiculous assertion with tenuous evidence.

Is User #2 guilty of trolling? If so, and we ban him or her, does User #2 rightfully accuse us of inconsistency because we did not also ban User #1 for posting a thread with a ridiculous assertion based on tenuos evidence? And if we do ban both users, are people going to be less likely to post political threads (ignoring that a lot of users don't like political threads)?

This is one completely fake example. My concerns, as you may know, are that (1) we will be inconsistent and (2) we will stop participation on the forums. These issues are more concerning to me than whether User #1 doesn't happen to like User #2's thread which he is not forced to read or respond to.


Yes, but do you have any examples that were not inspired by pimpdave?


reported for baiting a member of the forums who is already banned, AKA beating a dead horse AKA trolling

and anyway, TGD's example is obviously about the "Americans are cunts" thread and the obvious troll thread "Everyone is a cunt" made by pedro and AoN, respectively.
Sergeant 1st Class whitestazn88
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: behind you
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (1)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Master Fenrir on Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:51 pm

Good points, Woody.

Something else I've always wanted to point out: the "bigotry" rule shouldn't be the bigotry rule. Of all the things I've seen reported, maybe only a handful have been, by definition, bigotry. 99% of the time, the person is being ignorant or an asshole, but not a bigot.

Calling me a "guinea" because I'm Italian doesn't mean that you're a bigot who passionately hates all Italians and refuses to hear arguments as to why some Italians can be cool people. It means that you're trying to aggravate me by calling me an ethnic slur. Two completely different things.

I know that it's a harder rule to enforce without an umbrella word like "bigotry", but it's fucking annoying.
Image
User avatar
General Master Fenrir
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:40 am
Medals: 109
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (21) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (15) Tournament Contribution (14) General Contribution (11)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby jgordon1111 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:59 pm

Master Fenrir wrote:Good points, Woody.

Something else I've always wanted to point out: the "bigotry" rule shouldn't be the bigotry rule. Of all the things I've seen reported, maybe only a handful have been, by definition, bigotry. 99% of the time, the person is being ignorant or an asshole, but not a bigot.

Calling me a "guinea" because I'm Italian doesn't mean that you're a bigot who passionately hates all Italians and refuses to hear arguments as to why some Italians can be cool people. It means that you're trying to aggravate me by calling me an ethnic slur. Two completely different things.

I know that it's a harder rule to enforce without an umbrella word like "bigotry", but it's fucking annoying.


Well put Master F. And very true in alot of cases. But there are those instances that it is outright bigotry.

What is the determining factor to decide which is which.

That is one of the problems that is being addressed here.

Correcting the inconsistencies and being fair in the judgments handed down across the board.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant jgordon1111
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm
Medals: 41
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Neoteny on Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:09 pm

Freeing mustard and dagip should be top priority.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Lieutenant Neoteny
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (2)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby whitestazn88 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:28 pm

Neoteny wrote:Freeing wicked and insomniared should be top priority.


wut?
Sergeant 1st Class whitestazn88
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: behind you
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (1)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Army of GOD on Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:36 pm

squishyg wrote:triforcing an empty Live Chat


thanks for the shout out

also, a Metsfan sighting. I think that means winter's over...



anyway, I agree with tgd that most of the stuff is completely subjective. Just because you think someone is trolling, or being offensive, or flaming doesnt' necessarily mean others do. And that forces the question, at what point does something become bannable?

If it were up to me, I'd say completely remove all of the things that you can get banned for, bring back Flame Wars even though I joined the fora after it was deleted and just tell people that risks of going into Flame Wars, off-tropics, etc. The only thing that should be a bannable offense is high-volume spamming.

then again, it's not up to me.
penis
User avatar
Cook Army of GOD
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Over the river and through the woods
Medals: 26
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2)
Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Army of GOD on Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:37 pm

Also, the odds that anything actually changes is 1 billion to 1. I agree with Neoteny though.
penis
User avatar
Cook Army of GOD
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Over the river and through the woods
Medals: 26
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2)
Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby rdsrds2120 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:33 am

I would love a CC Rule Renaissance, to be honest. Maybe we can make it an event.

To shed more of a moderator perspective, here are some things that we try to do, but I feel we have problems with

1) Precedents
-- Whenever we try to reach a big decision, one of the resounding questions we ask is whether or not there's a precedent set for similar cases, and this is to try and remain consistent. I think that the problem occurs when, after a year or two of moderating, they're hard to just remember on the spot, and things start to get treated case by case. After a while with a (small, but still there) revolving door of moderators, it seems to be that the way that we interpret and apply the rules evolves over time with new team combinations, etc.

2) New Things That Come Up, Updating the Guidelines, and You
-- Every now and then, some small thing will be edited/tweaked in the Guidelines, and it's occurred to me now that from a public perspective, no one goes back and reviews that huge masterpost often, and you certainly shouldn't be expected to do that. Secondly, and this relates to the precedent point above, I sometimes feel it isn't fair that someone gets banned for something that might only be stated implicitly in the rules based on a precedent simply due to the fact that we don't have those precedents listed anywhere. However, there is a certain degree of freedom that moderators have with those implicit statements that's covered by the "Common Sense Prevails" statement.

With that said, I will now address points brought up specifically in this thread and supply my input:

thegreekdog wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(1) Someone being "intentionally annoying" is subjective. Some posters may find a user to be intentionally annoying, while others may not.


Certainly true, and I believe that this particular "guideline" would only apply to the most egregious of circumstances for exactly that reason. For instance, pimpdave's incessant "Tea Party Death Squad" threads...is there really ANY question he wasn't just trying to be intentionally annoying?


I agree with you that it should be applied only in egregious circumstances, but if it doesn't fall under trolling, baiting, flaming, I don't think it should then fall under intentionally annoying. Those three cover the intentionally annoying class.


I agree, in most, with this. Another thing I would like to note is that when we make a decision on whether or not to Discipline a certain user, we also weigh in the factor of how big that user's next ban is. For example, if a user blew up at someone just once, and their next ban would be a 6-monther (or, more recently, a 3-monther), we sometimes try to be lenient and just send a PM if it's mild or borderline. This has its own pros and cons:

Pro: It's not that hobgoblinish consistency you speak of, I think!
Con: It's not technically consistent, as it's then become a case-by-case scenario.
show


What tgd and Woodruff have discussed above, I also agree with tgd with what appears to be everything at first glance.

However, I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place for the following:
Two basic arguments in this thread have been
1) Apply rules extremely consistently
2) But, when being consistent, use common sense.

Those two points require a huge balancing act to coexist with each other, since they're pretty opposite in the nature that they're presented. On a team with 60+ members, the amount of variance from moderator to moderator deciding what exactly common sense entails leads to a huge pool of self-contradicting practice throughout the team. Is this anyone's specific fault? Of course not, it's the product of team inflation and the two points I've made at the beginning of my post.

Thanks for introducing the (at least on my end) elephant in the room, Woodruff. It's been something I know we should have been fleshing out and getting down to more of an exact science previously.

-rd
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 7220
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am
Medals: 90
Conquer Cup Bronze Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (9)
Clan Achievement (7) Training Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (9)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:04 am

chapcrap wrote:
jgordon1111 wrote:And can you be more specific about what is anarchist with this suggestion

Woodruff wrote:My actual suggestion is to get rid of the rules.

This is what anarchy is, no rules. No law. No governance.


Anarchy is the absence of a government. Anarchy does not mean "no rules, no law" because that would be chaos. Chaos and anarchy have two different meanings.

Rules aren't rules simply because a government establishes them. There's also informal rules, or law created and modified through informal institutions.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:11 am

Why not establish different guidelines for each forum/subgroup?

Perhaps, some of the problems could be alleviated when the rules aren't applied "universally." The cultures within each forum differ, so having a "one-size-fits-all" approach most likely causes many of the problems since the match isn't correct with the culture.



How would each community establish its own guideliens ? (e.g. egad, anarchy!)

We start threads, we discuss each rule and concept, and see if we come to a consensus or arrive at least to mutual understanding. It takes time, it's a process of trial-and-error, but it's the avenue that would provide the widest range of workable solutions.

(a points-based system per post would be a wet dream and would work effectively.)
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:26 am

Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
deathcomesrippin wrote:Maybe the mods and admin should get together, and decide on how much of each kind of posting is cool with each group, and then relate it to the general public? In C&A, we have far less tolerance generally speaking for baiting and flaming, insomuch as we will lock a thread if it even looks like it could get carried away, but like tdg said in OT they can carry on a bit further than most others. At least for that part of the rules it might iron things out for people.


I think that makes sense in light of how those two forums operate. Off topics and Cheating and Abuse are very different places and are moderated by different people with different visions of what each forum should look like.


While I do admit that OT should be more lenient than the C&A regarding this sort of thing due to the disparate natures of the forums, I do dearly love how C&A is handled and really wish OT was closely similar. I also recognize that's just my personal opinion. <sigh>


The thread would become lifeless. OT is a place for joking around; C&A is not. What do you think happens when a Serious set of rules is enforced equally in a more care-free and informal environment? You don't get the same outcome.


Why do you think that OT would become better with harsher enforcement of rules (C&A style)?

(remember: "better" does not equal "Woodruff thinks this is better"; somehow you have to make the case that the benefits outweigh the costs for all users... which is extremely difficult with value being subjective and all... ).
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Pedronicus on Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:26 am

Before I weigh in with a response, who exactly in CC hierarchy is going to agree to implement these changes (if changes occur)?

99 times out of 100 we just piss in the wind.

A post by Lack would encourage me to offer my thoughts. But seeing as how this suggestion isn't going to raise revenue I doubt we're going to hear f*ck all from him.
Image
Highest position 7th. Highest points 3311 All of my graffiti can be found here
Major Pedronicus
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Busy not shitting you....
Medals: 71
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (5) Clan Achievement (13) Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby eddie2 on Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:57 am

Woodruff wrote:
eddie2 wrote:what gets me about the trolling baiting intentionally annoying thing is

if a player has you on foe and goes around the forums reading your posts making minor baits and other things in them this is okay. this should not be classed as ok it should come under one of the trolling intentionally annoying busts.


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You seem to be saying that if a player has you on foe (but reads your posts anyway) and continuing to bait you, this is currently treated as ok...is that what you mean?

yes this is what i am saying woodruff if players are foed or have you foed they should not be commenting towards you in the forums.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class eddie2
 
Posts: 3831
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:56 am
Location: jersey channel islands
Medals: 73
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (5) Clan Achievement (10)
Tournament Contribution (5) General Contribution (3)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby AAFitz on Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:25 am

Fully disagree with said suggestion as its logic is fully flawed and seems motivated by other factors than actual positive change.
john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"
User avatar
Lieutenant AAFitz
 
Posts: 7222
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 84
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Ace Rimmer on Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:07 am

Pedronicus wrote:Before I weigh in with a response, who exactly in CC hierarchy is going to agree to implement these changes (if changes occur)?

99 times out of 100 we just piss in the wind.

A post by Lack would encourage me to offer my thoughts. But seeing as how this suggestion isn't going to raise revenue I doubt we're going to hear f*ck all from him.


AndyDufresne is the one that matters here, lack doesn't worry about this stuff, that's why he hired Andy.
User avatar
Captain Ace Rimmer
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:22 pm
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (9) Map Contribution (1)
Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (4)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Robinette on Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:33 am

AAFitz wrote:Fully disagree with said suggestion as its logic is fully flawed and seems motivated by other factors than actual positive change.



This is reason enough for me to put my full support behind said suggestion :P
Image
User avatar
Brigadier Robinette
 
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:32 pm
Location: Northern California
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1)
General Contribution (1)

Re: Rules Determination

Postby Woodruff on Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:58 am

rdsrds2120 wrote:However, I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place for the following:
Two basic arguments in this thread have been
1) Apply rules extremely consistently
2) But, when being consistent, use common sense.

Those two points require a huge balancing act to coexist with each other, since they're pretty opposite in the nature that they're presented.


I don't particularly agree that they're "pretty opposite in nature", but I absolutely agree that it's a balancing act that requires a great deal more finesse than is currently applied. As I've mentioned before, I absolutely believe that it's possible to be consistent while taking into account the variables that can apply regarding common sense.

rdsrds2120 wrote:On a team with 60+ members, the amount of variance from moderator to moderator deciding what exactly common sense entails leads to a huge pool of self-contradicting practice throughout the team. Is this anyone's specific fault? Of course not, it's the product of team inflation and the two points I've made at the beginning of my post.


Right...this is a very good point. We're all different...if thegreekdog and I were moderators, you can easily see in this thread how differently we would view things and I think that both he and I are fairly judicious in our view of "common sense". So I definitely get what you're saying. Perhaps one way to defeat that would be when there is a situation which could constitute being a borderline situation that could be viewed in different ways based on "common sense applications", that the moderator who is working the case pass it to the team in general to discuss together (with maybe King A having the final determination)? I'm just throwing that out as an offhand thought, but I do see what you're saying there, and I agree it has to be considered.

Might I also take this moment to say I am VERY pleased at how the several moderators and other TeamCC members participating in this thread are taking it seriously. Thank you.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4964
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

PreviousNext

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron
Login