Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:00 pm**

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.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:25 pm**

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.

which makes more sense for us to enforce the rules here.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:25 pm**

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.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:03 am**

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.

Here you go Stalin, no need to thank me:

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:48 pm**

Soooo, is there any good reason not to adopt this new system, or at the very least provide explanations for bans?

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.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:13 am**

For what it's worth, I agree. I don't know why bannings and the reasons behind them are secretive. They should be publicly displayed, not for the embarrassment of the person, but as a guideline for others.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:41 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
kentington 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.)
Situation 2: Value-Based Post Count
Not a fan of this idea. I'd recommend using the Seniority thing, or something like it.

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?

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:15 am**

spiesr wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
kentington 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.)
Situation 2: Value-Based Post Count
Not a fan of this idea. I'd recommend using the Seniority thing, or something like it.
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?

Because we wouldn't use Situation 2's valuation method of meting out punishment. The "People's Court/Polis Council", or whatever variant which we develop, is a superior alternative that can provide more avenues of discovering how best to govern ourselves.

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? "

1. The current rules are not perfectly implemented.
2. The formal rules (those in the Guidelines) do not represent the informal rules (our generally acceptable limits of conduct).
3. How do we best enforce both the formal rules and the informal rules?

4. Well, we can have all decisions made by the central planners, who have limited resources (time, familiarity with thread and accused users, etc.) and are partial (therefore the concerns you've raised can be equally used to criticize the mods).
5. Or we can have the Polis Council, which taps into a greater number and quality of resources, modifies and enforces rules--both formal and informal--that would lead to outcomes that are better than the current model.

Conquer Club

Rule Enforcement Discussion

Re:

Re: Rule Enforcement Discussion

Re: Rule Enforcement Discussion

Re: Rule Enforcement Discussion

Re: Rule Enforcement Discussion

Re: FREEEE Phatscotty!!

Re: FREEEE Phatscotty!!