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.