A Discussion Regarding Moderators

[Woodruff]

Based on the interactions between pimpdave and myself, I would state that more moderation needs to occur, or perhaps more quickly in situations like that one. Frankly, it took an embarrassing amount of time for action to be taken on that situation.

If by action you mean bannings, then it took a long time. If by action you mean moderation that did not involve bannings, it did not take a long time. Private messages were sent almost immediately.

But those private messages were essentially ignored by both parties (for different reasons, in my opinion, but ignored nonetheless). So EFFECTIVE action just took far too long. Even if it was just a "temporary ban to shut the two of you up while we continue to discuss the issue", it would have been more effective.

[Master Fenrir]

As far as I know, Woody, we've always been on pretty good terms and never had any issues, so please don't take this as me attacking you or arguing with you, but...

But those private messages were essentially ignored by both parties (for different reasons, in my opinion, but ignored nonetheless). So EFFECTIVE action just took far too long. Even if it was just a "temporary ban to shut the two of you up while we continue to discuss the issue", it would have been more effective.

Wouldn't something like that be equally criticized? Depending on the mood you or PD were in after coming off of this temporary ban? Couldn't you have posted a justified rant that you were unjustly banned by ban-happy mods? I was not a large part of the you vs. PD situation from a moderator's standpoint, but I can still see the razor's edge of not doing enough/doing too much in that situation.

[Woodruff]

As far as I know, Woody, we've always been on pretty good terms and never had any issues, so please don't take this as me attacking you or arguing with you, but...

You're definitely not saying anything here that I would take as "attacking", so please don't think I might.

But those private messages were essentially ignored by both parties (for different reasons, in my opinion, but ignored nonetheless). So EFFECTIVE action just took far too long. Even if it was just a "temporary ban to shut the two of you up while we continue to discuss the issue", it would have been more effective.

Wouldn't something like that be equally criticized? Depending on the mood you or PD were in after coming off of this temporary ban? Couldn't you have posted a justified rant that you were unjustly banned by ban-happy mods? I was not a large part of the you vs. PD situation from a moderator's standpoint, but I can still see the razor's edge of not doing enough/doing too much in that situation.

It seems to me to fall under the same guise as the "locked thread". Yes, I recognize that people still whine about threads being locked...but usually, it's those who were "the most participatory" that are complaining. In the situation of pimpdave and I, I think you'd get MAYBE the two of us unhappy and about 100 other people REALLY HAPPY. <smile> Seems like a good tradeoff to me.

Not only that, but let's look at reactions:
1. If it were determined that pimpdave and/or I should be punished, then have our ban-time start at the point where we were temp-banned...so that way, our punishment doesn't come across as being longer than it should have been. As well, how can we really complain if we're eventually found guilty?

2. If it were determined that pimpdave and/or I should NOT be punished, then ok...we may be mad that it happened, but ideally the time off would serve as a sort of a "cooling off period".

I will grant that a temp-ban should be used VERY judiciously...but in the situation that I'm referencing, I don't believe anyone would take any complaints either of us made about the temp-ban seriously at all and I think it would have been highly appropriate and a much better solution than allowing the two of us to continue being assholes publicly.

[TheForgivenOne]

Joshy, thanks for your input so far mate. I don't care what Leehar says about you, your ok in my books

Suck on that Leehar!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember that hoary old chestnut - be careful what you wish for, as you may just get it.......

Oi, that's my job

[Army of GOD]

(1) Over-moderation has chilled at least the general discussion forum; moderators should control their tendency to moderate in an abundahnce;

Yes.

(2) Moderators are biased in favor of particular users or groups of users; moderators should be as unbiased as possible (or least appear to be unbiased);
(3) Moderators do not uniformly enforce the rules; moderators should enforce the rules uniformly, including with respect to other moderators;
(4) Moderators are hypocritical; moderators should refrain from hypocrisy both from a moderation perspective and with respect to their own posts and gameplay.

No. This is similar to the cube consipracy theories. I believe moderators follow their own rules. However; I believe their own rules are, for the most part, ridiculous.

I guess you can say the start of the over-moderation of this site began the day Flame Wars was deleted. I, myself, started forumming right after Flame Wars went buh-bye, but am no doubt annoyed that it was deleted to begin with.

Over-moderation, in my opinion, only allows for a negative flux of potential krustomers. Under-moderation, I believe, is either closer to zero or positive in relation to flux of potential krustomers. The key about why under-moderation is better than over-moderation is that forumers have the oppurtunity to FAMO and/or avoid. If I think Woodruff is being overly racist or just a jerk, I can foe him (I have never foed anyone, but just an example) or just avoid that thread/his posts from now on. One thing I think this site can do better is better advertise the option of foeing someone, as you'll see C&A is riddled with threads about someone being butthurt in game chat/wall posts/the forum.

Over-moderation doesn't allow for the same management. Over-moderation really only has the potential to kill discussions/socialization within the forum. For example, a lot of people have been perma-banned from this site (this was back when perma-banishment was pretty prevalent) and both them and others who admired those posters are now gone from the site. I believe that number of people who have left is greater than those who would have left if under-moderation was the choice of the moderation of this site (because of the options to FAMO/avoid).

Live Chat is also way too over-moderated. I am close to the end of a six month ban from Live Chat, though if you were to ask the non-mods who were in Chat at the time I was banned they would all agree that the reason I was banned was bogus and an example of over-moderation. nietzsche, was banned for an even more bullshit reason. But the ability to FAMO still exists in Live Chat, so over-moderation isn't needed there either.

[macbone]

Thanks to all the other posters. macbone I don't know how you can bear to be in SoC with bruceswar, having someone so studly and shapely around 24/7 must be very distracting.

Are you kidding me? That's one of the perks!

[Bruceswar]

Thanks to all the other posters. macbone I don't know how you can bear to be in SoC with bruceswar, having someone so studly and shapely around 24/7 must be very distracting.

Are you kidding me? That's one of the perks!

[BoganGod]

Joshy, thanks for your input so far mate. I don't care what Leehar says about you, your ok in my books

Suck on that Leehar!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember that hoary old chestnut - be careful what you wish for, as you may just get it.......

Oi, that's my job

Role reversal, job sharing and lateral thinking in the work place/market place are part of the new smart economy

Army of God(so that would be army of nothing/non existant, so really your user name is zero?), sorry am really seeking help for my bracket fetish. Back to topic. Army of "God" you raise a few interesting points/suggestions in amongst your vague muttering about cube gods, more peanuts for parrots, and your love of dish lickers(greyhounds for the uneducated). FAMO is quite possibly something which needs to be promoted as a valid adult option. Have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the recent cases in C&A are more about personal grudges and/or attention seeking behaviour. So FAMO is not an option the posters/accusers would consider.

Master Fenrir nice input thanks.

macbone and bruceswar am sad to confess I don't have a good picture of bruce in his newest race day frock, am hoping to receive one soon.

[ljex]

Hello fans, devoted stalkers, jealous haters and mullet fanciers. Another thread in this most august of CC's fora, has sadly been going off topic, branching out to a discussion on the dastardly nature of mods, their duplicitous biased ways, nonsensical rulings and general spiteful evil souls.

The most hairy, olive skinned, and olive oil lubricated of mods(am presuming doggy holds this record, anyone else want to throw their hats in the ring, dako? Lindax? DJ Teflon?) your friend and mine the hellenic canine has expressed a desire to discuss mods.

Here is a thread to do so. Are mods evil, if so some proof please. Are mods self serving, attention seeking, publicity whores(sounds like the average municipal alderman), with no backbone, no courage, no morals, who take obscene pleasure in shutting down healthy and normal discussion on this site?

Is it possible that just maybe mods are getting a poor deal, slaving away as volunteers to make this site better for us the great unwashed, ungrateful, whining plebs. Could they be doing a great job of tackling a thankless task for little reward, zero praise, and mountains of abuse. In short are all mods secretly masochists.

I'm also wondering whether it would be possible to get a community consensus as to what constitutes a mod in the communities eyes. Is it any player with a funny coloured username? Or possibly only multi hunters, and discussion/chat moderators qualify as personifications of earthly evil on the net.

Am looking forward to an out pouring of wisdom from the CC community. Please remember to try and back up your opinions as much as possible with facts. Am well aware that this is a very emotional issue for some people.

Not having read the entire thread I will try to offer my opinion as a former mod.

I don't think mods are evil, I think they do what they think best at the time from there view point. We must always remember that people have different viewpoints and while mods are supposed to set these prejudgments aside it can often be very hard to do. Sometimes even impossible as you have subconscious viewpoints that effect a ruling and decision. Mods are definitely getting the short end of the stick, no matter what they do not everyone will be happy and yet everyone wants them to do what will make them happy. I must also say that while as a community member it sometimes seems like the mods our out to get you or someone else, the vast majority of the time as a Moderator it seems like people our out to get you or don't approve of your decisions. There really is a community vs the mods struggle where it seems everyone is protecting their own.

With respects to consistency it is very hard, and this is because two people never do the same thing. There are constantly small differences between cases but that said i wish the moderators were more consistent in similar cases. I actually think the mods have done very well to maintain consistency in everything but C&A. This of course is the most important place to be consistent. Those moderators never look for issues, outside of multies and thus there are many cheaters who get away with it because they are not prominent community members and other community members don't pay attention to them or don't even care to report them. I would also like to see more leeway for longstanding community members and the notion of innocent until proven guilty both of which i feel are missing and would go a long way to improve the relation between moderators and community.

However the biggest problem in my eyes is the lack of care of some moderating groups or individuals for what the community wants or foresight. You see it all the time, everyone thinks one thing in the community and the moderators go the other way only to experience huge backlash or a few very vocal customers. I think this happens most in clans. You can look at 2 issues right now, the first being in the CC2, and the possibility that there might not be clan medals for winning individual wars within the event. The second being that in the ACC because top clans get bye's there may not be a medal for the overall winner. These should be two of the most simple decisions ever, why does it matter who a clan faces the idea behind the medal is to give them out to the winning clan in a war and thus they should be given to every winning clan of a war that meets the game minimums. The other one is quite similar in nature, if you can get a medal for winning an 8 team tournament which could have as few as 3 games total why can a clan not get a medal for winning a clan tournament that to win will require winning at least 3 rounds of play just because there are bye's (sure both of these issues are not officially decided but that fact that they even need to be discussed this long speaks to the lack of interest someone at some level has to cater to the wishes of the community). To me it is these types of decisions where the powers the be try to over regulate and ignore the wishes of the public that initiate a sense of unrest between mods and community that transcends through user attitudes to other parts of CC and is bad for the overall health of the website. And even if they eventually make the right one, the tension is still there long after the issue has been resolved.

Anyway my 2 cents

[BoganGod]

Hello fans, devoted stalkers, jealous haters and mullet fanciers. Another thread in this most august of CC's fora, has sadly been going off topic, branching out to a discussion on the dastardly nature of mods, their duplicitous biased ways, nonsensical rulings and general spiteful evil souls.

The most hairy, olive skinned, and olive oil lubricated of mods(am presuming doggy holds this record, anyone else want to throw their hats in the ring, dako? Lindax? DJ Teflon?) your friend and mine the hellenic canine has expressed a desire to discuss mods.

Here is a thread to do so. Are mods evil, if so some proof please. Are mods self serving, attention seeking, publicity whores(sounds like the average municipal alderman), with no backbone, no courage, no morals, who take obscene pleasure in shutting down healthy and normal discussion on this site?

Is it possible that just maybe mods are getting a poor deal, slaving away as volunteers to make this site better for us the great unwashed, ungrateful, whining plebs. Could they be doing a great job of tackling a thankless task for little reward, zero praise, and mountains of abuse. In short are all mods secretly masochists.

I'm also wondering whether it would be possible to get a community consensus as to what constitutes a mod in the communities eyes. Is it any player with a funny coloured username? Or possibly only multi hunters, and discussion/chat moderators qualify as personifications of earthly evil on the net.

Am looking forward to an out pouring of wisdom from the CC community. Please remember to try and back up your opinions as much as possible with facts. Am well aware that this is a very emotional issue for some people.

Not having read the entire thread I will try to offer my opinion as a former mod.

I don't think mods are evil, I think they do what they think best at the time from there view point. We must always remember that people have different viewpoints and while mods are supposed to set these prejudgments aside it can often be very hard to do. Sometimes even impossible as you have subconscious viewpoints that effect a ruling and decision.(GOOD POINT, HOW DOES ONE GUARD AGAINST SUBCONSCIOUS BIAS? IS IT POSSIBLE?) Mods are definitely getting the short end of the stick, no matter what they do not everyone will be happy and yet everyone wants them to do what will make them happy.(AGREE, FUCKED IF THEY DO, FUCKED IF THEY DON'T. HOPE ADMIN TAKES CARE IF THEM IN WAYS WE ARE UNAWARE OF, SEEMS LIKE A THANKLESS TASK) I must also say that while as a community member it sometimes seems like the mods our out to get you or someone else, the vast majority of the time as a Moderator it seems like people our out to get you or don't approve of your decisions. There really is a community vs the mods struggle where it seems everyone is protecting their own.

With respects to consistency it is very hard, and this is because two people never do the same thing. There are constantly small differences between cases but that said i wish the moderators were more consistent in similar cases. I actually think the mods have done very well to maintain consistency in everything but C&A. This of course is the most important place to be consistent.( ) Those moderators never look for issues, outside of multies and thus there are many cheaters who get away with it because they are not prominent community members and other community members don't pay attention to them or don't even care to report them. I would also like to see more leeway for longstanding community members(DON'T AGREE, RULES SHOULD APPLY EQUALLY, SADLY RESPECT/LATITUDE FOR PRIOR ACHIEVEMENTS IS A ROMANTIC NOTION) and the notion of innocent until proven guilty both of which i feel are missing and would go a long way to improve the relation between moderators and community.

However the biggest problem in my eyes is the lack of care of some moderating groups or individuals for what the community wants or foresight. You see it all the time, everyone thinks one thing in the community and the moderators go the other way only to experience huge backlash or a few very vocal customers. I think this happens most in clans. You can look at 2 issues right now, the first being in the CC2, and the possibility that there might not be clan medals for winning individual wars within the event. The second being that in the ACC because top clans get bye's there may not be a medal for the overall winner. These should be two of the most simple decisions ever, why does it matter who a clan faces the idea behind the medal is to give them out to the winning clan in a war and thus they should be given to every winning clan of a war that meets the game minimums. The other one is quite similar in nature, if you can get a medal for winning an 8 team tournament which could have as few as 3 games total why can a clan not get a medal for winning a clan tournament that to win will require winning at least 3 rounds of play just because there are bye's (sure both of these issues are not officially decided but that fact that they even need to be discussed this long speaks to the lack of interest someone at some level has to cater to the wishes of the community).(INTERESTING POINTS, SOLID REASONING, THE CYNIC IN ME WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE IN BOTH THE TOURNAMENT AND CLAN WORLDS ARE OVERLY POLITICAL, AND HAVE "SPECIAL" INTERESTS WHICH THEY ARE DESPERATELY TRYING TO PROTECT WHILST ATTEMPTING TO MANUFACTURE DIFFERENT EXCUSES FOR RESISTING POPULAR AND WELL THOUGHT OUT SUGGESTIONS. EVEN GOING SO FAR AS TO ATTACK SOMETHING NEW EVEN WHEN IT DOESN'T THREATEN THEIR "PET" PROJECT. KNOWING SOME OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED, I KNOW THAT ISN'T THE CASE, BUT IT SURE APPEARS THAT WAY) To me it is these types of decisions where the powers the be try to over regulate and ignore the wishes of the public that initiate a sense of unrest between mods and community that transcends through user attitudes to other parts of CC and is bad for the overall health of the website. And even if they eventually make the right one, the tension is still there long after the issue has been resolved.

Anyway my 2 cents

Sorry all for being lazy and adding comments in capitals. Shoot me, am time poor this afternoon. ljex you need to stop being so sensible, I might even come to have some respect for you. We would both hate that I'm sure.

ljex thanks for your input, very well thought out and succinctly put. Hope some current moderators and admin are taking notice. Hate to think that they are planning changes that no one wants in the time they could be listening to the community. Then I'm just a cynic.

[thegreekdog]

(1) Over-moderation has chilled at least the general discussion forum; moderators should control their tendency to moderate in an abundahnce;

Yes.

(2) Moderators are biased in favor of particular users or groups of users; moderators should be as unbiased as possible (or least appear to be unbiased);
(3) Moderators do not uniformly enforce the rules; moderators should enforce the rules uniformly, including with respect to other moderators;
(4) Moderators are hypocritical; moderators should refrain from hypocrisy both from a moderation perspective and with respect to their own posts and gameplay.

No. This is similar to the cube consipracy theories. I believe moderators follow their own rules. However; I believe their own rules are, for the most part, ridiculous.

I guess you can say the start of the over-moderation of this site began the day Flame Wars was deleted. I, myself, started forumming right after Flame Wars went buh-bye, but am no doubt annoyed that it was deleted to begin with.

Over-moderation, in my opinion, only allows for a negative flux of potential krustomers. Under-moderation, I believe, is either closer to zero or positive in relation to flux of potential krustomers. The key about why under-moderation is better than over-moderation is that forumers have the oppurtunity to FAMO and/or avoid. If I think Woodruff is being overly racist or just a jerk, I can foe him (I have never foed anyone, but just an example) or just avoid that thread/his posts from now on. One thing I think this site can do better is better advertise the option of foeing someone, as you'll see C&A is riddled with threads about someone being butthurt in game chat/wall posts/the forum.

Over-moderation doesn't allow for the same management. Over-moderation really only has the potential to kill discussions/socialization within the forum. For example, a lot of people have been perma-banned from this site (this was back when perma-banishment was pretty prevalent) and both them and others who admired those posters are now gone from the site. I believe that number of people who have left is greater than those who would have left if under-moderation was the choice of the moderation of this site (because of the options to FAMO/avoid).

Live Chat is also way too over-moderated. I am close to the end of a six month ban from Live Chat, though if you were to ask the non-mods who were in Chat at the time I was banned they would all agree that the reason I was banned was bogus and an example of over-moderation. nietzsche, was banned for an even more bullshit reason. But the ability to FAMO still exists in Live Chat, so over-moderation isn't needed there either.

I tend to agree that over moderation results in less "speech." Additionally, more moderations leads to even more moderation.

[lord voldemort]

Would be cool though to get one mans story, "How I became part of big brothers police network, and how I regained my soul".

You know he's not the only person to retire his mod position...

+1


Just quickly..i dont want to get too involved here.

But where I feel the inconsistency comes from in c&a is two things
1 the community not ever having the full picture. You dont get it all...As simple as that. And you wont ever unfortunately. Lack wants to keep secrets about how they detect cheating (and its right to do so)
2 The 2-3 main hunters (guys who make the decisions) arent the most well versed in playing Conquer Club. And sometimes simply dont understand what is going on and what the problem is. I remember my time as a hunter taking a case or wrong doing up the tree to then get: I dont understand what is wrong with this.

They dont have an easy job at all (one I thankfully got away from) It is time consuming and you are hated for it.
From talking to other mods and just from issues that I can tell. They arent getting the support they once used to. The site is looking to grow and in the last year there are new faces yet the old ones are leaving to a new website (cough we all know which one) An obvious example is the issue's currently around in the clan forums.

I have always been of the firm belief that the forums are over moderated. Mods are quick to hand out punishments and lock threads and 'abuse power' I was always posting that the way to stop trolls and people causing shit is to actually talk to these posters like human adults. When you engage someone in an actual conversation its amazing the response you will get back. Sure there will be the odd user who causes so much shit cause they are an actual dick...but then you deal with that appropriately. This method isnt used at all. Look at the perma-banning of t-o-m for an example.

Anyway thats my 2cents in a very much un-organised fashion with average grammar. gl

TL;DR Mods have a hard time due to lack of support and understanding from both admin and community

[jpcloet]

TL;DR Mods have a hard time due to lack of support and understanding from both admin and community

This is very true, wise words.

[BoganGod]

Would be cool though to get one mans story, "How I became part of big brothers police network, and how I regained my soul".

You know he's not the only person to retire his mod position...

+1


Just quickly..i dont want to get too involved here.

But where I feel the inconsistency comes from in c&a is two things
1 the community not ever having the full picture. You dont get it all...As simple as that. And you wont ever unfortunately. Lack wants to keep secrets about how they detect cheating (and its right to do so)
makes sense
2 The 2-3 main hunters (guys who make the decisions) arent the most well versed in playing Conquer Club. And sometimes simply dont understand what is going on and what the problem is. I remember my time as a hunter taking a case or wrong doing up the tree to then get: I dont understand what is wrong with this.
how to we change this, could it be that you need a thief to catch a thief?

They dont have an easy job at all (one I thankfully got away from) It is time consuming and you are hated for it. Thankless task, what motivates people to be a moderator, lovo why did you become one?
From talking to other mods and just from issues that I can tell. They arent getting the support they once used to. The site is looking to grow and in the last year there are new faces yet the old ones are leaving to a new website (cough we all know which one) An obvious example is the issue's currently around in the clan forums.
Clans are the reason I'm on CC, clans are not going anyway except down into the political, hide bound, zero risk, boring mire

I have always been of the firm belief that the forums are over moderated. Mods are quick to hand out punishments and lock threads and 'abuse power' I was always posting that the way to stop trolls and people causing shit is to actually talk to these posters like human adults. When you engage someone in an actual conversation its amazing the response you will get back. Sure there will be the odd user who causes so much shit cause they are an actual dick...but then you deal with that appropriately. This method isnt used at all. Look at the perma-banning of t-o-m for an example.

Anyway thats my 2cents in a very much un-organised fashion with average grammar. gl

TL;DR Mods have a hard time due to lack of support and understanding from both admin and community

thanks lovo for your comments. Speaking from experience I've appreciated your attempting to treat people as adults in the past. Your ok for a tasmanian. If you have time to share why you became a mod would be great mate.

[ljex]

Would be cool though to get one mans story, "How I became part of big brothers police network, and how I regained my soul".

You know he's not the only person to retire his mod position...

+1


Just quickly..i dont want to get too involved here.

But where I feel the inconsistency comes from in c&a is two things
1 the community not ever having the full picture. You dont get it all...As simple as that. And you wont ever unfortunately. Lack wants to keep secrets about how they detect cheating (and its right to do so)
makes sense
2 The 2-3 main hunters (guys who make the decisions) arent the most well versed in playing Conquer Club. And sometimes simply dont understand what is going on and what the problem is. I remember my time as a hunter taking a case or wrong doing up the tree to then get: I dont understand what is wrong with this.
how to we change this, could it be that you need a thief to catch a thief?

They dont have an easy job at all (one I thankfully got away from) It is time consuming and you are hated for it. Thankless task, what motivates people to be a moderator, lovo why did you become one?
From talking to other mods and just from issues that I can tell. They arent getting the support they once used to. The site is looking to grow and in the last year there are new faces yet the old ones are leaving to a new website (cough we all know which one) An obvious example is the issue's currently around in the clan forums.
Clans are the reason I'm on CC, clans are not going anyway except down into the political, hide bound, zero risk, boring mire

I have always been of the firm belief that the forums are over moderated. Mods are quick to hand out punishments and lock threads and 'abuse power' I was always posting that the way to stop trolls and people causing shit is to actually talk to these posters like human adults. When you engage someone in an actual conversation its amazing the response you will get back. Sure there will be the odd user who causes so much shit cause they are an actual dick...but then you deal with that appropriately. This method isnt used at all. Look at the perma-banning of t-o-m for an example.

Anyway thats my 2cents in a very much un-organised fashion with average grammar. gl

TL;DR Mods have a hard time due to lack of support and understanding from both admin and community

thanks lovo for your comments. Speaking from experience I've appreciated your attempting to treat people as adults in the past. Your ok for a tasmanian. If you have time to share why you became a mod would be great mate.

I think why people become a mod is because they enjoy the site, and think that they can help it with their time. This is why i became a mod, and i know the same is true for a few others

[safariguy5]

I think a lot about how I view mods has to do with prior connections with them.

Danryan and Master Fenrir were both in the old O&H clan, and my respect for them has not changed due to them becoming mods.

I knew nagerous from playing mafia and the AU before he became a mod, and my opinion of him hasn't changed from that either.

I think that a player's reputation has a lot to do with how they are perceived as mods, a person known as being fair and logical in the forums before becoming a mod will probably garner the same respect after they become a mod.

On the flip side, I think it's much harder for an edgier or more controversial member to build a reputation as a fair mod as people tend to believe that they abuse power even before really looking at the context.

[ljex]

I think a lot about how I view mods has to do with prior connections with them.

Danryan and Master Fenrir were both in the old O&H clan, and my respect for them has not changed due to them becoming mods.

I knew nagerous from playing mafia and the AU before he became a mod, and my opinion of him hasn't changed from that either.

I think that a player's reputation has a lot to do with how they are perceived as mods, a person known as being fair and logical in the forums before becoming a mod will probably garner the same respect after they become a mod.

On the flip side, I think it's much harder for an edgier or more controversial member to build a reputation as a fair mod as people tend to believe that they abuse power even before really looking at the context.

I believe most of this to be true, and I feel that I had a particularly tough time being a mod because of my previous actions on CC well before I was a mod. That said I think this was more a discussion of peoples views on the moderator group as a whole rather than individual relationships.

On a side note, while a mod I made many decisions that even people I was friendly with thought I was making the wrong decision with respects to their posts. I feel that ultimately one disagreement can completely change the relationship between users especially for a mod. I remember one particular case where I sent a PM to a friend talking about how I thought one user had been owned in an argument where flaming and baiting had occurred. Completely unrelated to the issues of CC infractions but through my friend it made it to the user who I had said got owned. Months later when I was sending a warning to this user they claimed I was biased against them based on my earlier statement of me thinking they lost an argument.

[safariguy5]

I think a lot about how I view mods has to do with prior connections with them.

Danryan and Master Fenrir were both in the old O&H clan, and my respect for them has not changed due to them becoming mods.

I knew nagerous from playing mafia and the AU before he became a mod, and my opinion of him hasn't changed from that either.

I think that a player's reputation has a lot to do with how they are perceived as mods, a person known as being fair and logical in the forums before becoming a mod will probably garner the same respect after they become a mod.

On the flip side, I think it's much harder for an edgier or more controversial member to build a reputation as a fair mod as people tend to believe that they abuse power even before really looking at the context.

I believe most of this to be true, and I feel that I had a particularly tough time being a mod because of my previous actions on CC well before I was a mod. That said I think this was more a discussion of peoples views on the moderator group as a whole rather than individual relationships.

On a side note, while a mod I made many decisions that even people I was friendly with thought I was making the wrong decision with respects to their posts. I feel that ultimately one disagreement can completely change the relationship between users especially for a mod. I remember one particular case where I sent a PM to a friend talking about how I thought one user had been owned in an argument where flaming and baiting had occurred. Completely unrelated to the issues of CC infractions but through my friend it made it to the user who I had said got owned. Months later when I was sending a warning to this user they claimed I was biased against them based on my earlier statement of me thinking they lost an argument.

That's true but I think that for the majority of users, each mod holds different amounts of respect or scorn. I mean, I've seen plenty of complaints that X mod is terrible at what he does but Y mod is "one of the few decent ones" or something. As a positive example (as anything negative might end up in flaming or baiting), I think most people agree Andy is a "good" mod.

So how does a mod who is perceived to be unfair prove his impartiality? One way is to try and gain trust through fair rulings (although each person's interpretation of fair can be quite contentious as you touched upon), and the other I think would be to rely on a base of well known users who respect him from before he's a mod. Track record has a good amount of impact, especially for the newer mods I think. The only way you can try to judge a new mod's performance is by looking at their prior conduct on the forums.

In essence, it's a lot like the Supreme Court Justice nominations, you think they're going to act one way, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

[JoshyBoy]

I think why people become a mod is because they enjoy the site, and think that they can help it with their time. This is why i became a mod, and i know the same is true for a few others

+1

Well said ljex.

[rdsrds2120]

I think why people become a mod is because they enjoy the site, and think that they can help it with their time. This is why i became a mod, and i know the same is true for a few others

+1

Well said ljex.

I became a mod for the pure masochistic pleasure of banning people!

And to help the Community

-rd

[BoganGod]

I think why people become a mod is because they enjoy the site, and think that they can help it with their time. This is why i became a mod, and i know the same is true for a few others

+1

Well said ljex.

I became a mod for the pure masochistic pleasure of banning people!

And to help the Community

-rd

+ another 1 for ljex.

Now folks, why the hell can C&A mods not make clear and concise rulings? Is there some rule against it? Would it be too difficult for people to explain exactly why they made a ruling. Players would feel that they were treated better if they knew were they stood. Rather than treading carefully round "unwritten" rules. I can understand as stated earlier that some of the methods used to find multis don't need to be spelled out. That makes sense. But come on, lets get some consistency with other rulings.

Mods and ex mods, tell me why it isn't happening. Tell me how you think it could be done, or if people that want consistency should just go to another site?

Am I asking to much?

[safariguy5]

I think why people become a mod is because they enjoy the site, and think that they can help it with their time. This is why i became a mod, and i know the same is true for a few others

+1

Well said ljex.

I became a mod for the pure masochistic pleasure of banning people!

And to help the Community

-rd

+ another 1 for ljex.

Now folks, why the hell can C&A mods not make clear and concise rulings? Is there some rule against it? Would it be too difficult for people to explain exactly why they made a ruling. Players would feel that they were treated better if they knew were they stood. Rather than treading carefully round "unwritten" rules. I can understand as stated earlier that some of the methods used to find multis don't need to be spelled out. That makes sense. But come on, lets get some consistency with other rulings.

Mods and ex mods, tell me why it isn't happening. Tell me how you think it could be done, or if people that want consistency should just go to another site?

Am I asking to much?

I agree, what happened to a trial in an open court? You can hide the identities of confidential informants, but the verdict should be explained. Would clear up a lot of this gray area in things like farming, game chat flaming, ratings abuse...

[ljex]

I think why people become a mod is because they enjoy the site, and think that they can help it with their time. This is why i became a mod, and i know the same is true for a few others

+1

Well said ljex.

I became a mod for the pure masochistic pleasure of banning people!

And to help the Community

-rd

+ another 1 for ljex.

Now folks, why the hell can C&A mods not make clear and concise rulings? Is there some rule against it? Would it be too difficult for people to explain exactly why they made a ruling. Players would feel that they were treated better if they knew were they stood. Rather than treading carefully round "unwritten" rules. I can understand as stated earlier that some of the methods used to find multis don't need to be spelled out. That makes sense. But come on, lets get some consistency with other rulings.

Mods and ex mods, tell me why it isn't happening. Tell me how you think it could be done, or if people that want consistency should just go to another site?

Am I asking to much?

I think the problem arises mainly due to our perception of what the line is where as C&A has a different line. I'm sure they have a number of games/ratings whatever that they consider to be the minimum or some factual statistical measure to determine if someone is a cheater or at the very least if they should dig deeper to see if they are a cheater. Problem is we as players don't know that line, which is good because then we dont have the ability to play right within the line but bad because seemingly similar cases are quite different in the fact that they are on opposite sides of the line.

All that said, I think C&A also lets a players past be a factor in cases or what the player says and does. As much as I don't want to rehash the same issue over and over again I feel it is applicable here so I will use it as an example. I have since moved on but I was given a warning for game throwing a month or two ago. My major problem is not so much that I received it (I asked for attention and got it, while I know I didnt throw any of the games, I will fully admit that all things taken into account some games looked thrown in the log), but more so the fact that there are much more obvious cases of game throwing that have been brought to the attention of C&A in the past that were ruled innocent.

My 6 games
Game 9117000
Game 9085510
Game 9085720
Game 9108521
Game 9108506
Game 9108494

LMS/tdans 5 games. It is of note that these 5 wins got L M S to General for the first time
Game 7839044
Game 7839045
Game 7839046
Game 7839047
Game 7839048

Alching 4 games. In the first game listed he even admits he is point dumping. Also I foed him after I realized what he was doing.
Game 8145051
Game 8145052
Game 8145052
Game 8145091

The only differences I see are that I had 6 games of evidence (if you look at the england one its kinda clear that that is not game throwing as I lost my stack in a manual game before my first turn) and that I made my intention to lose points a much larger public issue. These are the types of things I would love to CC avoid where two very similar cases are ruled on differently because they only serve to disrupt the overall positive vibe of a website. Anyone in business knows that even one unhappy customer can cause signification damage to profitability.

This is also an example of where better communication from Team CC is needed, I am yet to ever get an explanation for why there were different rulings despite having asked through PM and E-Ticket, the most I got was your warning is going to stay.

[safariguy5]

I think why people become a mod is because they enjoy the site, and think that they can help it with their time. This is why i became a mod, and i know the same is true for a few others

+1

Well said ljex.

I became a mod for the pure masochistic pleasure of banning people!

And to help the Community

-rd

+ another 1 for ljex.

Now folks, why the hell can C&A mods not make clear and concise rulings? Is there some rule against it? Would it be too difficult for people to explain exactly why they made a ruling. Players would feel that they were treated better if they knew were they stood. Rather than treading carefully round "unwritten" rules. I can understand as stated earlier that some of the methods used to find multis don't need to be spelled out. That makes sense. But come on, lets get some consistency with other rulings.

Mods and ex mods, tell me why it isn't happening. Tell me how you think it could be done, or if people that want consistency should just go to another site?

Am I asking to much?

I think the problem arises mainly due to our perception of what the line is where as C&A has a different line. I'm sure they have a number of games/ratings whatever that they consider to be the minimum or some factual statistical measure to determine if someone is a cheater or at the very least if they should dig deeper to see if they are a cheater. Problem is we as players don't know that line, which is good because then we dont have the ability to play right within the line but bad because seemingly similar cases are quite different in the fact that they are on opposite sides of the line.

All that said, I think C&A also lets a players past be a factor in cases or what the player says and does. As much as I don't want to rehash the same issue over and over again I feel it is applicable here so I will use it as an example. I have since moved on but I was given a warning for game throwing a month or two ago. My major problem is not so much that I received it (I asked for attention and got it, while I know I didnt throw any of the games, I will fully admit that all things taken into account some games looked thrown in the log), but more so the fact that there are much more obvious cases of game throwing that have been brought to the attention of C&A in the past that were ruled innocent.

My 6 games
Game 9117000
Game 9085510
Game 9085720
Game 9108521
Game 9108506
Game 9108494

LMS/tdans 5 games. It is of note that these 5 wins got L M S to General for the first time
Game 7839044
Game 7839045
Game 7839046
Game 7839047
Game 7839048

Alching 4 games. In the first game listed he even admits he is point dumping. Also I foed him after I realized what he was doing.
Game 8145051
Game 8145052
Game 8145052
Game 8145091

The only differences I see are that I had 6 games of evidence (if you look at the england one its kinda clear that that is not game throwing as I lost my stack in a manual game before my first turn) and that I made my intention to lose points a much larger public issue. These are the types of things I would love to CC avoid where two very similar cases are ruled on differently because they only serve to disrupt the overall positive vibe of a website. Anyone in business knows that even one unhappy customer can cause signification damage to profitability.

This is also an example of where better communication from Team CC is needed, I am yet to ever get an explanation for why there were different rulings despite having asked through PM and E-Ticket, the most I got was your warning is going to stay.

I disagree with this statement somewhat. Yes, that's true if you're a small business, but CC has had thousands of members, and some of them have been quite unhappy. Hasn't affected the site as far as I can tell. Once you hit a critical mass of customers, one or two unhappy ones won't make a big dent.

Look at Walmart and McDonalds. I have friends who won't go to one or both of those places, and that hasn't hurt them any. Company size has a lot to do with the company's leverage.

That and competition, and CC's competition is not real strong either.

[donkeylove]

I disagree with this statement somewhat. Yes, that's true if you're a small business, but CC has had thousands of members, and some of them have been quite unhappy. Hasn't affected the site as far as I can tell. Once you hit a critical mass of customers, one or two unhappy ones won't make a big dent.

Look at Walmart and McDonalds. I have friends who won't go to one or both of those places, and that hasn't hurt them any. Company size has a lot to do with the company's leverage.

That and competition, and CC's competition is not real strong either.

Oh please, this is a small business, currently there are just over 18000 people that have taken a turn in the last 30 days and far less than those actually pay for the privilege. In the UK 100000 would be classed as a small town, Wal-mart and McDonalds are multinationals who serve millions of people so yes, a few people avoiding them doesn't hurt.

I joined a while ago then left, and have now come back I see that the 'mod' team has grown a lot. The problem is as other people have raised is that a lot of decisions are made by individuals and can differ quite drastically. There should be more definitive rules drawn up, saying on the rules page that the site is quite liberal on its stance, justs shows that violations can be dealt with either randomly (depending on the ruling mods mood) or biasedly.