Clarity, Consistency, Pipe-dream or Possible?

[xelabale]

So lots of negative complaints threads with a couple of things in common - we want clarity of rules, we want consistency of application. So, some questions...

Can anything like a dialogue happen with this, because there's a marked lack of coloured ink in these threads?
Is it just whiners, or are these valid complaints?
What can we do about it to move things on? (If you were new and came into the forums, what would you think of the health of the forum right now?)

Personally I think they are valid complaints, made in confrontational ways that make it difficult to respond to, but valid complaints. I'd like to see some sort of dialogue in the manner of the bigotry thread.

What are your opinions on how to move forward from this morass of impasse?



PS This is meant to be a constructive thread, we all know the complaints and the counter-arguments - please discuss how to move forward in this thread only.

PPS The humour in the poll may be silly, but they are serious options...

[Neoteny]

I think the potential is there, but the probability is low. I don't think it would really be difficult. As can be seen from the poll already, those who think there is nothing wrong don't have much to say, but the complaints have not only stayed constant, but have escalated recently. Compare this with the dice complaints, which have gone down (but not away) over time. I dunno if it's as bad as some say, but there are definitely some issues that I see that would not take much effort to fix, imo.

[thegreekdog]

In terms of clarity regarding rules, the mods have been fairly open-minded in taking our comments and running with them. We've seen, in the last few months, clarifications on, among other things, what constitutes racism and bigotry, so I think we can work together to get some clarification.

In terms of consistency, I believe that the mods can be reasonable out this. I'm not sure how reasonableness can be secured. I think complaining about unfairness on the forums brings these types of things up in discussion. I don't know how much the mods will pay attention to this sort of thing, but based on the way the mods acted regarding rules clarification, I have faith.

[hwhrhett]

i think alot more would get accomplished if those with complaints avoided taking an adversarial stance, and instead took an inquisitorial or suggestive stance to their arguements...

ie:

instead of saying "f*ck <insert mod name here>, he banned me for saying <insert inflammatory statement here>"

they might say "<insert mod name here> banned me for saying this and i was unaware it was against the rules, what else arent i allowed to say?" or "maybe we should be allowed to say this"


i think minor changes like that could possibly prevent the 'complainer' from alienating himself or herself from those with interest in helping...

[Neoteny]

There are a number of people who do that, though they may be drowned out by the more aggressive posters (and the people who feed those posters by responding to and antagonizing them). Not being heard in that respect only breeds more anger though.

[hwhrhett]

There are a number of people who do that, though they may be drowned out by the more aggressive posters (and the people who feed those posters by responding to and antagonizing them). Not being heard in that respect only breeds more anger though.

this happens ALOT, and it is a damn shame when good people have their ideas drowned out by antagonists, and i can understand why people do it when they disagree with someone's idea or statement, but its amazing how many people do that to people they agree with. and they dont even realize that by being a douche, they are ruining it for themselves also...

[notyou2]

WOW!!! 17 votes but only a total of 6 posts by a total of 4 different posters. Apparently people are voting and then running

[mibi]

I think in general, all this banning/moderator stuff concerns a small group of people, my self not included, so I can't really get as worked up as these threads imply.

[stahrgazer]

So lots of negative complaints threads with a couple of things in common - we want clarity of rules, we want consistency of application. So, some questions...

Can anything like a dialogue happen with this, because there's a marked lack of coloured ink in these threads?
Is it just whiners, or are these valid complaints?
What can we do about it to move things on? (If you were new and came into the forums, what would you think of the health of the forum right now?)

I'm one of those members who is expressing a valid complaint; I'm not just a whiner.

My concerns mainly have to do with the social aspects of the site. Some might think that since this is a gaming site, social aspects don't matter. They do matter. Some reasons people prefer one site over another are messaging features, forums, and the quality of the people on the site. Too, it's the social aspects that encourage communication, and that communication is vital to people working together to produce new maps for the benefit of the site.

Anyway, the op questions whether productive dialogue can occur. I have hope. It's slim, but I have hope.

One reason I have hope is, one of the CC team whose past actions resulted in the majority of my complaint has since come to see the errors made; even apologized for them. I've since seen the mod use more judicious and friendlier tactics to diffuse potential problems, even if the mod held a different viewpoint. This tells me the mods can grow. Unfortunately, some members who are aware of only snippets of information presume they know all about my concerns, so blow me off to the "just a griper," arena... even to telling me that the mod shouldn't have apologized for those past mistakes. Messages like that lessen my hope.

I have another reason to hope, though: I received an actual response from Andy, which vastly differs from private messages being ignored by prior admin, so that's an improvement. Unfortunately, that improvement is minimized because the response carried an insulting, "Most people just want to gripe, but when asked, no one wants to help." When I pointed out that prior to the extremes of my concern causing me to get totally fed up with CC, I had been sponsoring tournaments with prizes, working on some maps, contributing to community news, helping new people learn strategies and maps... Andy returned a message that is wearisome to those of us who have legitimate concerns, who are willing to offer ideas that might address those concerns. The message he gave: "If you don't like it, leave."

The result is, I have mixed views as to whether CC really wants an open dialogue to help them make improvements to social aspects of the site.

[sully800]

i think alot more would get accomplished if those with complaints avoided taking an adversarial stance, and instead took an inquisitorial or suggestive stance to their arguements...

ie:

instead of saying "f*ck <insert mod name here>, he banned me for saying <insert inflammatory statement here>"

they might say "<insert mod name here> banned me for saying this and i was unaware it was against the rules, what else arent i allowed to say?" or "maybe we should be allowed to say this"


i think minor changes like that could possibly prevent the 'complainer' from alienating himself or herself from those with interest in helping...

I have a feeling that if everyone conducted themselves in such a manner there would be much fewer cases of "this mod just doesn't like me and wants to ban me".

If you conduct yourself in a positive and helpful manner, people will recognize it. If you make a mistake and sincerely try to prevent it from happening again people will recognize and respect that as well. If you simply disagree with the rules of the site you have the right to voice your concerns, but breaking those rules will obviously set you against the mods. And finally, if you decide to repeatedly break the rules of the site and in turn disrespect the mods who are doing their job you are simply forming and adversarial relationship. In this manner, it would appear you are much more likely to get banned.

[hwhrhett]

I'm one of those members who is expressing a valid complaint; I'm not just a whiner.

My concerns mainly have to do with the social aspects of the site. Some might think that since this is a gaming site, social aspects don't matter. They do matter. Some reasons people prefer one site over another are messaging features, forums, and the quality of the people on the site. Too, it's the social aspects that encourage communication, and that communication is vital to people working together to produce new maps for the benefit of the site.

Anyway, the op questions whether productive dialogue can occur. I have hope. It's slim, but I have hope.

One reason I have hope is, one of the CC team whose past actions resulted in the majority of my complaint has since come to see the errors made; even apologized for them. I've since seen the mod use more judicious and friendlier tactics to diffuse potential problems, even if the mod held a different viewpoint. This tells me the mods can grow. Unfortunately, some members who are aware of only snippets of information presume they know all about my concerns, so blow me off to the "just a griper," arena... even to telling me that the mod shouldn't have apologized for those past mistakes. Messages like that lessen my hope.

I have another reason to hope, though: I received an actual response from Andy, which vastly differs from private messages being ignored by prior admin, so that's an improvement. Unfortunately, that improvement is minimized because the response carried an insulting, "Most people just want to gripe, but when asked, no one wants to help." When I pointed out that prior to the extremes of my concern causing me to get totally fed up with CC, I had been sponsoring tournaments with prizes, working on some maps, contributing to community news, helping new people learn strategies and maps... Andy returned a message that is wearisome to those of us who have legitimate concerns, who are willing to offer ideas that might address those concerns. The message he gave: "If you don't like it, leave."

The result is, I have mixed views as to whether CC really wants an open dialogue to help them make improvements to social aspects of the site.

except that you want a safer, more friendly cc, and the majority of the complainers want a more adult friendly flame-welcome cc. so when you hop into those threads urging for change, that is what you are promoting mostly... like this one for instance, xelabale is most likely(correct me if im wrong please xelabale) refering to the many many forum posts lately from flamewars folks who want to know exactly how vulgar they can be without being booted, and how often they can do it, and how much of a bad apple they can be without being reprimanded.

and if im not mistaken, your opinion(again correct me if im wrong stahr) is that you want the mods to react stricter towards those that break the rules, call names senselessly, and inhibit others enjoyment of the game. correct?

[stahrgazer]

i think alot more would get accomplished if those with complaints avoided taking an adversarial stance, and instead took an inquisitorial or suggestive stance to their arguements...

ie:

instead of saying "f*ck <insert mod name here>, he banned me for saying <insert inflammatory statement here>"

they might say "<insert mod name here> banned me for saying this and i was unaware it was against the rules, what else arent i allowed to say?" or "maybe we should be allowed to say this"


i think minor changes like that could possibly prevent the 'complainer' from alienating himself or herself from those with interest in helping...

I have a feeling that if everyone conducted themselves in such a manner there would be much fewer cases of "this mod just doesn't like me and wants to ban me".

If you conduct yourself in a positive and helpful manner, people will recognize it. If you make a mistake and sincerely try to prevent it from happening again people will recognize and respect that as well. If you simply disagree with the rules of the site you have the right to voice your concerns, but breaking those rules will obviously set you against the mods. And finally, if you decide to repeatedly break the rules of the site and in turn disrespect the mods who are doing their job you are simply forming and adversarial relationship. In this manner, it would appear you are much more likely to get banned.

All this sounds reasonable, except it's not working like that in practice.

For example, the background of my concern is, I wasn't the one breaking site rules, someone else was..repeatedly.. but because the someone else was being protected by a moderator, nothing was done about it. If I retorted at all, even as mildly as, "that's untrue" I got slammed.

What allowed that to occur is still admin/cc policy.

For example, recently on the forums, we have cases where one person is getting banned for saying something; considered "flaming" for the post, while in the same week in another topic, a mod was guilty of saying the same flame against someone else.

Another point that makes me laugh at hrett suggesting such reasonableness is that, around the time I was getting fed up with that other member's repeated nasties in Social and a few game comments (games he wasn't in but followed me into), I joined a game with hrett and a few others, having previously explained that I was unfamiliar with that particular game format so could use some help. My grievous error was to attack someone; it happened to be hrett. Apparently he thought my attacking him wasn't smart for that game style, and his idea of "suggestive stance" was to flame. When I objected to the flame and asked a few people to explain just what was wrong with my attack, I got more nasties and some "suck it up cupcakes". To date, no one has bothered to explain why my attacking hrett at that moment was a poor move and I guess I'm just too blonde to understand on my own why someone isn't supposed to attack an opponent in a wargame. Even if they had, "flame as a first comment" is hardly a "suggestive stance."

[stahrgazer]

and if im not mistaken, your opinion(again correct me if im wrong stahr) is that you want the mods to react stricter towards those that break the rules, call names senselessly, and inhibit others enjoyment of the game. correct?

Okay, correction time. I do not want mods reacting more strictly to namecalling. I want the mods to offer mild warnings on any complaints; the words I've suggested are, "Player x complained about your post blahblah. Please refrain from similar posts around that player so that things do not escalate." I've suggest combining "more mild warnings" with a policy to REDUCE, not INCREASE, posting bans to a few days max, even for repeated offenses.

I believe that if discipline was less prone to escalate into extensive and/or permanent bans, mods might be more willing to address mild concerns on a mild but equitable basis. While I believe "language offenses" should be warned regardless who made the post, I don't believe that "language" should result in permanent bans unless it's totally extreme on an ongoing basis.

In my issue with you, for example, hrett, if a mod had warned you from my C&A, "That was uncalled for; the chick is obviously unfamiliar with that particular game play, so please refrain from flaming insults in game chat," the issue would've been done and over with. Instead, I got slammed for reporting it; yet, someone else got banned for making similar (or perhaps less offensive) comments in THEIR gamechat.

More warnings, less bans, is not "more strict."

[hwhrhett]

Another point that makes me laugh at hrett suggesting such reasonableness is that, around the time I was getting fed up with that other member's repeated nasties in Social and a few game comments (games he wasn't in but followed me into), I joined a game with hrett and a few others, having previously explained that I was unfamiliar with that particular game format so could use some help. My grievous error was to attack someone; it happened to be hrett. Apparently he thought my attacking him wasn't smart for that game style, and his idea of "suggestive stance" was to flame. When I objected to the flame and asked a few people to explain just what was wrong with my attack, I got more nasties and some "suck it up cupcakes". To date, no one has bothered to explain why my attacking hrett at that moment was a poor move and I guess I'm just too blonde to understand on my own why someone isn't supposed to attack an opponent in a wargame. Even if they had, "flame as a first comment" is hardly a "suggestive stance."

come on stahr, let us remember, i apologized minutes after i made the statement. and i DID try to explain to you why it was a bad move, but at that point you only wanted to call names and be angry, remember our dozens of pms back and forth with you being angry and me trying to smooth it over with nice talk and advise?

but im not gonna argue with you about that, after reading this its clear to me that you have no interest in the truth. only in being right. and you can tell people whatever you want, i dont care. the majority of players know me to be a reasonable person that rarely loses his cool. im sorry you happened to have been the object at one of those times, but when you cant accept an apology and there is nothing that i can do to make up for it, i have no idea why you continue to bring it up. i was merely guessing based on your other forum posts that you are looking for a kinder friendlier cc(which i still think you are even tho your saying your not)...

let it go. your complaints about the admins, have nothing to do with me(or so youve said). so why bring up this old nonsense...

[stahrgazer]

come on stahr, let us remember, i apologized minutes after i made the statement. and i DID try to explain to you why it was a bad move, but at that point you only wanted to call names and be angry, remember our dozens of pms back and forth with you being angry and me trying to smooth it over with nice talk and advise?

As I told you in recent pm's, I saw no apology or explanation of the strategy.

Edit: as for letting it go, I probably would, if you'd only stop misquoting me :lol:

[Foxglove]

I would like a poll option for: "Neutral - more alliterative titles, please"

[xelabale]

So fairly even split, 19 to 15 thinking the complaints are fair. Does anyone at cc care?