Re: FREEEE Phatscotty!!
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:28 pm
Can we extend Scotty's Suspension?
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184686
CBlake wrote:Can we extend S-c-o-t-t-y-'-s S-u-s-p-e-n-s-i-o-n?
kentington wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:(For more details, especially about opaque rule enforcement, see Haggis' and notyou2's posts here.
I agree with what they have said.
kentington wrote:Ok, so the tug-o-war begins. Glad we can agree on the face value of the others. They are a lot less subjective and less prone to emotion.BigBallinStalin wrote:I'd resort to tug-o-war on the Blatant Flaming, but the others seem fine. The People's Court idea is a tangent; my primary concerns are the following:
(1) Adverse rewards to the highly sensitive complainers in the form of bans against their 'worst enemies'.
---i.e. People who continually throw a fit about minor attacks and perceived sleights seem to be rewarded with their cries for a ban against whoever they dislike. It's a crap system which should be stopped, and stopping this requires removing the mods' monopoly on the decision rights for such bans. In other words, the highly sensitive would have to take their case to their general public instead of a few, very partial mods.
Starting with number 1. At first glance this seems like a great idea. The community is the customer and to some extent should have a say in the way the community feels/is run. So, to narrow this down there are two issues that readily show up. If you have an idea with how to deal with them or you agree with my solution for part of it then great.
Situation 1. Not everyone is a premium member, therefore not everyone is a customer to CC. Should they be allowed to vote as well?
My thought is no, but then this seems like a good way to piss people off.
Situation 2. CC value. We each have a value in CC and this includes quality/quantity of posts ratio.
Premium Member A- S10,000 (10k Saxi Bucks) A skinny guy with a mustache and a dinosaur outfit.
Premium Member B- S100 (100 Saxi Bucks) A very cute, sugary, sword toting guy.
Premium Member A flames PMB : "Ha, suck it you didn't even make it on the popularity contest. Step up your game loser. ::Big L:: I would kill myself if I was you." (I don't really want to make it worse.)
PMB takes his case to the people. Well, the people have valued PMA at S10k and PMB at S100, do we really want to lose that guy with a creepy smile over this?
So, now the judges have switched places, but the community has decided that certain members with a lot of credit can get away with more than those who don't have as much value. An argument for that is : You are paying customers so what is the problem? Well, we also have to protect our little guys who aren't as cool or good looking. Do mods ever step in and how would that work? We would still be somewhat subjective. (It is a subjective situation. Not bias, but certain words and phrases bother certain people differently.)
kentington wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) Random Rule Enforcement
---i.e. User A is warned for infraction X, but later banned for infraction Y, which is irritating because the user isn't informed (warned) about committing infraction Y. A first warning is typically used to cover the current infraction (baiting) as well as later infractions of different kinds (necrobump, spam), thus failing to clarify exactly what the boundaries are for infraction Y--since no warning was given for Y.
Agreed.
At the very least. Let us say they have gotten a warning in every subject and they have become a troll, then we can :
a) Bring it to the people
b) Give a final warning and let the member know that the next infraction for x,y, or z will result in a ban
kentington wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:(3) Opaque Rule Enforcement
---- Obviously, the rules are clearly written yet remain ambiguous because circumstances can vary. Because of this ambiguity, the community requires feedback from the enforcers in the form of publicly announcing why user A was banned. Upon receiving this information, the users can make more discretionary posts, thus becoming more law-abiding users. Without public announcements, then the users have a less certain idea as to where the mods 'draw the line in the sand' in regard to the more ambiguous rules and their gray areas.
I agree. The offenses were public and the sentence should be as well.
What about stuff that goes on in a pm? Do you agree that it should be handled by a Mod and if a ban is warranted, then the mods make the call and just make public that the ban was for pm's and the type of infraction without details?
kentington wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:(For more details, especially about opaque rule enforcement, see Haggis' and notyou2's posts here.
I agree with what they have said.
kentington wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:If the goal of the mods is to create a more just system as well as more law-abiding community, then they should enact the above three policies.
This is the ultimate goal for me. I didn't become a mod for premium. Look at my games. I didn't become a mod so people would love me, that obviously wouldn't work. I didn't become a mod for the power, as when I first joined powers were very limited and I had to watch a lot of stuff and ask permission before doing things. (Which makes sense, to prevent rogue mods(that white hair stripe isn't cool anymore))
I just want the community to flow and as I said in the other thread I am a background poster. I prefer to just do stuff and maybe have a few people notice, but not a lot of people. That is how I am in real life. I work with machines and fix them and I don't want to deal with all of the people just a few.
Long post I know and TMI, but I think it was all pretty much on topic and if we actually agree on things I will present it to the people who make the ultimate calls on this site.
kentington wrote:You had me at Bill Murray.
I have a really bad headache right now. I had a fever last night, so I have to say pending more review.
I can't see an issue with what was posted so far. I agree this is for Off Topics only. If anyone behaves improperly in General Discussions and even more so Suggestions, then they will be dealt with by the mods per the regular forum guidelines. This would take a lot of time to set up for multiple forums and you would have to keep track of too many things. It is less appropriate to go OT in those other forums.
Would we just start a thread for a new infraction and then have the members put Vote: guilty/not guilty?
I will post more thoughts later after my head calms down.
patches70 wrote:You have a lot of ideas for how to run something that isn't even your, BBS. You seem to have ignored that fact. Maybe you should consult with the actual owners of the site?
I mean, it's all good if you want to whip the mobs into a frenzy. That can be a lot of fun in many ways. But in the end, for all your supposedly good intentions, you'll merely destroy that which you are trying to change.
Just sayin' is all.
I especially like your clever manipulations at attempting to give yourself more influence because you've determined to separate people into groups and then arbitrarily deciding which group is above other groups.
Hilarity, I must say.
Carry on with your revolution.
kentington wrote:I split this from the Free Scotty thread. It was enough of its own topic. I added a poll, so please vote. I will be posting the result of the poll and only running it for one week. I will probably add other polls ITT as questions arise.
stahrgazer wrote:kentington wrote:I split this from the Free Scotty thread. It was enough of its own topic. I added a poll, so please vote. I will be posting the result of the poll and only running it for one week. I will probably add other polls ITT as questions arise.
I'm curious why it was split to here, rather than general discussion or some other area of CC that's supposed to be related to CC?
DoomYoshi wrote:So my post on the schizoid life of the rules on CC didn't make the cut.
2dimes wrote:Write in for, "Well whatever gets you through the day. I can't see a difference."
If some one decides to have it in for you there's little solice in them 'spaining your ban to the people you've left behind.
macbone wrote:Frankly, I don't like the idea of votes, or communist users deciding on whether a member needs to be censured for breaking community guidelines. What I do like is having a clear statement of why a user has been banned. Doing so would add more transparency to the process and provide justification for mods' actions.
BigBallinStalin wrote:macbone wrote:Frankly, I don't like the idea of votes, or communist users deciding on whether a member needs to be censured for breaking community guidelines. What I do like is having a clear statement of why a user has been banned. Doing so would add more transparency to the process and provide justification for mods' actions.
Yeah, you can go away to GD or wherever you're from.
macbone wrote:Frankly, I don't like the idea of votes, or communist users deciding on whether a member needs to be censured for breaking community guidelines. What I do like is having a clear statement of why a user has been banned. Doing so would add more transparency to the process and provide justification for mods' actions.
I don't think you actually provided a response to the issue raised in situation 2. Which is "how the you stop the council (or whatever you are using) from letting a user get away with more than others become they like/enjoy/value that user more than others? Or is that the entire point of the idea?BigBallinStalin wrote:Situation 2: Value-Based Post Countkentington wrote:Situation 2. CC value. We each have a value in CC and this includes quality/quantity of posts ratio.
Premium Member A- S10,000 (10k Saxi Bucks) A skinny guy with a mustache and a dinosaur outfit.
Premium Member B- S100 (100 Saxi Bucks) A very cute, sugary, sword toting guy.
Premium Member A flames PMB : "Ha, suck it you didn't even make it on the popularity contest. Step up your game loser. ::Big L:: I would kill myself if I was you." (I don't really want to make it worse.)
PMB takes his case to the people. Well, the people have valued PMA at S10k and PMB at S100, do we really want to lose that guy with a creepy smile over this?
So, now the judges have switched places, but the community has decided that certain members with a lot of credit can get away with more than those who don't have as much value. An argument for that is : You are paying customers so what is the problem? Well, we also have to protect our little guys who aren't as cool or good looking. Do mods ever step in and how would that work? We would still be somewhat subjective. (It is a subjective situation. Not bias, but certain words and phrases bother certain people differently.)
Not a fan of this idea. I'd recommend using the Seniority thing, or something like it.
spiesr wrote:I don't think you actually provided a response to the issue raised in situation 2. Which is "how the you stop the council (or whatever you are using) from letting a user get away with more than others become they like/enjoy/value that user more than others? Or is that the entire point of the idea?BigBallinStalin wrote:Situation 2: Value-Based Post Countkentington wrote:Situation 2. CC value. We each have a value in CC and this includes quality/quantity of posts ratio.
Premium Member A- S10,000 (10k Saxi Bucks) A skinny guy with a mustache and a dinosaur outfit.
Premium Member B- S100 (100 Saxi Bucks) A very cute, sugary, sword toting guy.
Premium Member A flames PMB : "Ha, suck it you didn't even make it on the popularity contest. Step up your game loser. ::Big L:: I would kill myself if I was you." (I don't really want to make it worse.)
PMB takes his case to the people. Well, the people have valued PMA at S10k and PMB at S100, do we really want to lose that guy with a creepy smile over this?
So, now the judges have switched places, but the community has decided that certain members with a lot of credit can get away with more than those who don't have as much value. An argument for that is : You are paying customers so what is the problem? Well, we also have to protect our little guys who aren't as cool or good looking. Do mods ever step in and how would that work? We would still be somewhat subjective. (It is a subjective situation. Not bias, but certain words and phrases bother certain people differently.)
Not a fan of this idea. I'd recommend using the Seniority thing, or something like it.