A Discussion Regarding Moderators

[safariguy5]

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.

Well I guarantee you that in the 5+ years that this site has been around, it has definitely pissed off its share of players (Flame Wars anyone?). Obviously it's still around, so the idea that you have to keep everyone happy all the time is nonsense.

[lord voldemort]

Yes this is a small business...Maccas is a gigantic business.
Lack completely relies on those premium paying members...Which is a small percentage of the actual site. Sure this site is still showing minimal growth members wise. But its not at the rate of growth say 2 years ago. Those people who have been annoyed take their business somewhere else. Do you not think those 100s of players make a difference?? I tell you lack would think so.

As for C&A...alot of the time they look at patterns. When someone is reported for dumping games for example...Every game in the time frame is noted and looked at. There isnt an x number of games or x% Its what is felt by all to be reasonable. By all I mean king a, sometimes Andy and all the hunters. Having said that...sometimes this group doesnt understand the game enough to know the complete story.

[ljex]

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.

You do realize that CC is easily a small business right? While CC has 20,000 or so users i would be surprised if 25% of them were paying members. That is only 5,000 paying members, I know a ton of small businesses that have more than 5,000 customers paying a lot more than $25 a year. Also the statement it hasn't affected the site as far as you can tell is from the worst viewpoint possible. You don't know what would be if CC didn't have unhappy customers and you don't realize how much a few pissed of customers can effect business. This may all seem insignificant but in the long run it adds up and any one with any business sense knows this.

Also it may not be clear yet, but competition is increasing and while right now CC is the best place to play that can switch rather quickly.

[safariguy5]

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.

You do realize that CC is easily a small business right? While CC has 20,000 or so users i would be surprised if 25% of them were paying members. That is only 5,000 paying members, I know a ton of small businesses that have more than 5,000 customers paying a lot more than $25 a year. Also the statement it hasn't affected the site as far as you can tell is from the worst viewpoint possible. You don't know what would be if CC didn't have unhappy customers and you don't realize how much a few pissed of customers can effect business. This may all seem insignificant but in the long run it adds up and any one with any business sense knows this.

Also it may not be clear yet, but competition is increasing and while right now CC is the best place to play that can switch rather quickly.

Alright, well if we assume lack is a good businessman, then he would cater to the players more should business really be slipping right?

Lots of people left after flame wars was removed. That hasn't changed.

People complain about C&A guidelines. Minor revisions aside, no real movement towards transparent judgments.

People constantly complain about how lopsided the dice are. A few revisions, but that's an issue I think people are going to be unhappy with any way you look at a random thing.

My point is that people have complained about the same things for years now, and no real substantive change is happening. Therefore, business must not be suffering to the point where a major system and guideline overhaul or reexamining is not in order. Of course I don't work for the site, so I have no idea what the books look like, but I'd assume overhead is a lot lower here than it is for a bricks and mortar shop. So unless there's a mass exodus from this site elsewhere, I assume the margins are still good enough that it'll be business as usual for now.

Now I have no problems with how the site is run or how moderation is handled and I realize we might be drifting OT here. I just think that changes need some sort of outside force, and I don't see that happening, so I assume CC is doing just fine financially.

[Woodruff]

Alright, well if we assume lack is a good businessman, then he would cater to the players more should business really be slipping right?

If lack were a good businessman, he'd be around here more often paying attention to what people said about the site, rather than relying on his admin voice-filters. So I think we can rule out good businessman.

[BoganGod]

Alright, well if we assume lack is a good businessman, then he would cater to the players more should business really be slipping right?

If lack were a good businessman, he'd be around here more often paying attention to what people said about the site, rather than relying on his admin voice-filters. So I think we can rule out good businessman.

Your thinking more along the lines of absentee landlord? This is now just a hobby for him?

I don't mind paying to use a service, I think paying should enhance the experience. Also people don't value things as much if they are just given to them. What I HATE is being dicked around.

If I pay for a cake and they have used salt instead of sugar, I want to know that it is some pastry chef on smacks attempt at being an individual before I purchase. If I purchase.

The principle of the matter is this. It doesn't matter whether I'm paying $2 or $200. Give me a consistant service. Give me what I pay for, make it the same everytime. Answer questions on the product. No customer service/poor customer service = complacent incompetance.


Please excuse almost the almost &**)*# level of spelling, without a spell check on this computer at work.

[Woodruff]

Alright, well if we assume lack is a good businessman, then he would cater to the players more should business really be slipping right?

If lack were a good businessman, he'd be around here more often paying attention to what people said about the site, rather than relying on his admin voice-filters. So I think we can rule out good businessman.

Your thinking more along the lines of absentee landlord? This is now just a hobby for him?

I don't know if it IS just a hobby for him, but it absolutely gives that appearance to me. In fact, I think it's unavoidably so.

No customer service/poor customer service = complacent incompetance.

This would seem to describe lackattack's appearance (of a lack of appearance...as it were), to me.

[JoshyBoy]

(Flame Wars anyone?)

BAN THIS GUY!!!

[safariguy5]

(Flame Wars anyone?)

BAN THIS GUY!!!

I side with wicked!

Free DM!


But seriously, if this site wasn't profitable, it probably wouldn't have survived this long.

[JoshyBoy]

Free DM!

+1

[ljex]

(Flame Wars anyone?)

BAN THIS GUY!!!

I side with wicked!

Free DM!


But seriously, if this site wasn't profitable, it probably wouldn't have survived this long.

Do you actually have 0 business sense? I ask this question because you keep acting like because everything is ok it shouldn't be fixed. Well that's all fine and dandy until customers get fed up and begin to leave or competition arises and people leave. Furthermore just because you are making money does not mean you couldn't be making more money which is always a good thing.

[Commander62890]

I think the problem was that Safariguy was assuming Lack was a good businessman, while Ljex and Woodruff are stating that, given the evidence, Lack cannot be a good businessman.

But seriously, if this site wasn't profitable, it probably wouldn't have survived this long.

True, but fairly meaningless and completely irrelevant.



Obviously, I agree that the main problem with CC moderating is in C+A.

[safariguy5]

(Flame Wars anyone?)

BAN THIS GUY!!!

I side with wicked!

Free DM!


But seriously, if this site wasn't profitable, it probably wouldn't have survived this long.

Do you actually have 0 business sense? I ask this question because you keep acting like because everything is ok it shouldn't be fixed. Well that's all fine and dandy until customers get fed up and begin to leave or competition arises and people leave. Furthermore just because you are making money does not mean you couldn't be making more money which is always a good thing.

No, I have plenty of business sense, I'm saying that because nothing is changing, I assume the site is profitable. Is it correlation or causation, I cannot say for sure, but what I think is this.

1. Major reforms have been called for in the past. Nothing exceptionally substantive has occurred.

2. People have left due to being unhappy at the lack of change.

3. Reforms have not occurred despite membership leveling out apparently.

My conclusion is nothing is being fixed because lack believes the current profit margins are good. Sure, he could institute changes and that might bring some people back, but he probably believes that the site is making good money as it is now, and the time and effort required to make changes that would bring some people back is not worth it in a cost analysis.

Now I'm not saying the site has stayed static. Over the years, we've seen new game settings, new forums, the standardization of clans and tournaments, and site script clickies among other things. What I am saying is that the reforms to C&A and other policy changes haven't occured, therefore the admins must feel that changing them is not necessary to maintain current cashflow.

In your words, what I am saying is "nothing is being fixed, therefore losing customers isn't a big issue at this point."

[BoganGod]

This discussion is slowly warping into one about changes to site. Site profitability etc.

Lets keep it on topic a bit. Discussing mods and whether they are doing a good job or not.

Consensus so far

- mods have a hard and thankless job, they don't receive enough support from admin/lack
- most mods/ex mods took on the task out of faith in the potential of CC, and the desire to help the site.
- everyone seems to think that C&A mods haven't even begun to get their shit together, no consistency, no(or little and detailed) explanations of rulings(if any rulings recorded). The lack of consistency is the most serious fault with C&A mods. Quite a few different reasons/excuses/theories have been put forward to explain customers not getting what they have payed for.


A few other things, sadly to say ljex has been taking smart pills and is making a lot of sense, so I won't be able to keep on treating him with disdain and contempt. The hellenic canine is not contributing quite as much as I would like. I'm sure he is has better things to do, like scratch his fleas. No one has really mentioned how good looking I am in this thread, so my ego is suffering. Please feel free to pm me with pic requests. Back to topic

[safariguy5]

I think that the C&A mods do get a bit of a bum rap. I'm sure many if not all of them would love to publish the reasoning behind their rulings or set up clear guidelines about what constitutes cheating and abuse and what doesn't. While certain cases like multis and secret diplomacy are quite easy, there are a number of issues where inconsistencies and sometimes contradictory rulings have been given.

1. Account Sitting
2. Point Dumping
3. Throwing Games
4. Bigotry/Racism in game chat
5. Farming

I'm sure the C&A mods would love to be able to explain why some cases were ruled one way and others ruled the other way. However, I think CC admin policy restricts them from divulging this sort of information. I can understand why you would want to keep confidential the multi tracking system as that's the main revenue source for the site, but most C&A complaints that generate animosity aren't about multis. If the mods and the admins could work together and perhaps allow clearer C&A explanations, I think it would help make rulings more consistent.

[Woodruff]

(Flame Wars anyone?)

BAN THIS GUY!!!

I side with wicked!

Free DM!


But seriously, if this site wasn't profitable, it probably wouldn't have survived this long.

Do you actually have 0 business sense? I ask this question because you keep acting like because everything is ok it shouldn't be fixed. Well that's all fine and dandy until customers get fed up and begin to leave or competition arises and people leave. Furthermore just because you are making money does not mean you couldn't be making more money which is always a good thing.

No, I have plenty of business sense, I'm saying that because nothing is changing, I assume the site is profitable. Is it correlation or causation, I cannot say for sure, but what I think is this.

1. Major reforms have been called for in the past. Nothing exceptionally substantive has occurred.

2. People have left due to being unhappy at the lack of change.

3. Reforms have not occurred despite membership leveling out apparently.

My conclusion is nothing is being fixed because lack believes the current profit margins are good. Sure, he could institute changes and that might bring some people back, but he probably believes that the site is making good money as it is now, and the time and effort required to make changes that would bring some people back is not worth it in a cost analysis.

Now I'm not saying the site has stayed static. Over the years, we've seen new game settings, new forums, the standardization of clans and tournaments, and site script clickies among other things. What I am saying is that the reforms to C&A and other policy changes haven't occured, therefore the admins must feel that changing them is not necessary to maintain current cashflow.

In your words, what I am saying is "nothing is being fixed, therefore losing customers isn't a big issue at this point."

A successful business is not created nor maintained through apathy on the part of the ownership.

[Woodruff]

- everyone seems to think that C&A mods haven't even begun to get their shit together, no consistency, no(or little and detailed) explanations of rulings(if any rulings recorded). The lack of consistency is the most serious fault with C&A mods.

One thing everyone needs to remember is that the C&A mods have, by FAR, the most difficult job on the site.

[BoganGod]

- everyone seems to think that C&A mods haven't even begun to get their shit together, no consistency, no(or little and detailed) explanations of rulings(if any rulings recorded). The lack of consistency is the most serious fault with C&A mods.

One thing everyone needs to remember is that the C&A mods have, by FAR, the most difficult job on the site.

No one is disputing that. Just as no one seems to be disputing that the C&A mods are fumbling the ball a bit to often.

[Evil Semp]

- everyone seems to think that C&A mods haven't even begun to get their shit together, no consistency, no(or little and detailed) explanations of rulings(if any rulings recorded). The lack of consistency is the most serious fault with C&A mods.

One thing everyone needs to remember is that the C&A mods have, by FAR, the most difficult job on the site.

No one is disputing that. Just as no one seems to be disputing that the C&A mods are fumbling the ball a bit to often.

Just because someone disagree with a decision doesn't mean that the ball was fumbled.

[Dibbun]

I've never seen a bad C&A decision. I've seen decisions I've disagreed with (ad10 farming) but that was decided by King A and I know for a fact a few mods were on my side on that one. Overall I feel mods do their due diligence and if you don't believe that read Round 2 of the Sitzaholic controversy. Mods went through a lot of evidence and a lot of shit posts and in the end a very logical and thorough decision was reached.

[ljex]

- everyone seems to think that C&A mods haven't even begun to get their shit together, no consistency, no(or little and detailed) explanations of rulings(if any rulings recorded). The lack of consistency is the most serious fault with C&A mods.

One thing everyone needs to remember is that the C&A mods have, by FAR, the most difficult job on the site.

No one is disputing that. Just as no one seems to be disputing that the C&A mods are fumbling the ball a bit to often.

Just because someone disagree with a decision doesn't mean that the ball was fumbled.

When the ball is fumbled in the eyes of users it doesn't matter if it was actually fumbled or not. If you can provide me with a logical argument for how my case was different than either of the 2 mentioned in my earlier post then I would like to hear it, but I don't see how one could be provided.

I've never seen a bad C&A decision. I've seen decisions I've disagreed with (ad10 farming) but that was decided by King A and I know for a fact a few mods were on my side on that one. Overall I feel mods do their due diligence and if you don't believe that read Round 2 of the Sitzaholic controversy. Mods went through a lot of evidence and a lot of shit posts and in the end a very logical and thorough decision was reached.

I actually think the Blitz case was one of the worse ones made for the site. Blitz broke no rules, and if i was in that situation I would have done the same exact thing. There is no way i would have thought anything of joining the games as i would have assumed the other sitters were taking the turns. That and he couldn't have easily seen score falling unless he looked at the players wall as once you are a cook your rank stays the same even if points fall a bunch. To me that seemed like a lets please the community ruling. Just based on the fact that what he did was not against the rules. I'm all for it being against the rules and think it should be...but this crap where CC makes up rules and penalizes people for it before people know it is a rule pisses me off.

[natty dread]

I actually think the Blitz case was one of the worse ones made for the site. Blitz broke no rules, and if i was in that situation I would have done the same exact thing. There is no way i would have thought anything of joining the games as i would have assumed the other sitters were taking the turns. That and he couldn't have easily seen score falling unless he looked at the players wall as once you are a cook your rank stays the same even if points fall a bunch. To me that seemed like a lets please the community ruling. Just based on the fact that what he did was not against the rules. I'm all for it being against the rules and think it should be...but this crap where CC makes up rules and penalizes people for it before people know it is a rule pisses me off.

What are you on about? Interested in a THOTA membership or something?

Joining non-tournament games with someone else's account is against the rules and always has been.

[BoganGod]

- everyone seems to think that C&A mods haven't even begun to get their shit together, no consistency, no(or little and detailed) explanations of rulings(if any rulings recorded). The lack of consistency is the most serious fault with C&A mods.

One thing everyone needs to remember is that the C&A mods have, by FAR, the most difficult job on the site.

No one is disputing that. Just as no one seems to be disputing that the C&A mods are fumbling the ball a bit to often.

Just because someone disagree with a decision doesn't mean that the ball was fumbled.

Not so much disagreeing with decisions. More a case of disagreeing with lack of process and documented reasons for decisions.

Splitting moralistic hairs here. If a good decision is reached by using a bad/faulty decision making model, is it still a good decision. Then we get into murky waters with definitions of good, decision, model, bad etc.

Sure you can understand what I'm trying to get at. Make rulings transparent, make them pertinent, and make them consistent. I don't think any of the posters are saying you have to reveal multi detection tools and strategies. There is wide spread support for a better, more consistent , better documented and clearer non multi C&A process. If we can't see the ball, then there is no proof that A) it exists, and B) if it exists that it hasn't been fumbled.

[safariguy5]

- everyone seems to think that C&A mods haven't even begun to get their shit together, no consistency, no(or little and detailed) explanations of rulings(if any rulings recorded). The lack of consistency is the most serious fault with C&A mods.

One thing everyone needs to remember is that the C&A mods have, by FAR, the most difficult job on the site.

No one is disputing that. Just as no one seems to be disputing that the C&A mods are fumbling the ball a bit to often.

Just because someone disagree with a decision doesn't mean that the ball was fumbled.

Not so much disagreeing with decisions. More a case of disagreeing with lack of process and documented reasons for decisions.

Splitting moralistic hairs here. If a good decision is reached by using a bad/faulty decision making model, is it still a good decision. Then we get into murky waters with definitions of good, decision, model, bad etc.

Sure you can understand what I'm trying to get at. Make rulings transparent, make them pertinent, and make them consistent. I don't think any of the posters are saying you have to reveal multi detection tools and strategies. There is wide spread support for a better, more consistent , better documented and clearer non multi C&A process. If we can't see the ball, then there is no proof that A) it exists, and B) if it exists that it hasn't been fumbled.

I agree. On certain issues like farming or account sitting, it's difficult to even tell whether the decision is good in the first place.

[ljex]

I actually think the Blitz case was one of the worse ones made for the site. Blitz broke no rules, and if i was in that situation I would have done the same exact thing. There is no way i would have thought anything of joining the games as i would have assumed the other sitters were taking the turns. That and he couldn't have easily seen score falling unless he looked at the players wall as once you are a cook your rank stays the same even if points fall a bunch. To me that seemed like a lets please the community ruling. Just based on the fact that what he did was not against the rules. I'm all for it being against the rules and think it should be...but this crap where CC makes up rules and penalizes people for it before people know it is a rule pisses me off.

What are you on about? Interested in a THOTA membership or something?

Joining non-tournament games with someone else's account is against the rules and always has been.

well actually no...I was offered a tryout to THOTA 6 months - 1 year ago and turned it down mainly because I don't like Blitz. Also with respect to the joining of non tournament games that is against the rules and I would be fine if they warned him for that but they punished him twice in that single case essentially going straight to the 1 month vacation. This is where my problem lies...