TIF is bit over-moderated

[Andy]

On another note - mass deletion of posts is a horrible way to moderate things.

[Kimberly]

On another note - mass deletion of posts is a horrible way to moderate things.

 

Okay, that's good feedback (EDIT: I'm serious, that is helpful.). What would you rather see the moderation staff do when handling multiple rule-breaking posts at once?

 

If you want to negotiate TEF, do so on OUR forums.

The post deletion problem is cropping up again.

 

If I recall the posts that were removed on another thread that had nothing to do with the issues being presented here were removed because they didn't contribute to the topic, and instead chose to insult moderation staff members and crew alike. There are some people posting in that thread who had a few casual posts removed, but then later reposted with more elaborated points which make them completely reasonable--we appreciate that sort of effort. :)

[Grimy_Bunyip]

On another note - mass deletion of posts is a horrible way to moderate things.

 

Okay, that's good feedback (EDIT: I'm serious, that is helpful.). What would you rather see the moderation staff do when handling multiple rule-breaking posts at once?

I do have ideas for you.

And we have suggested ideas in the past in regards to this, but mods like Danq delete them before they get to the eyes of more sympathetic mods.

And it's not like we know who the sympathetic mods are before they respond to us.

Nor can we mass PM the TIF mods.

 

soo yeah, ideas have been suggested as alternatives to mass deletion but you never saw them because they got mass deleted.

Regardless, I'm not negotiating on TIF anymore.

If you want to hear the ideas, go ask on TEF.

[Kimberly]

I do have ideas for you.

And we have suggested ideas in the past in regards to this, but mods like Danq delete them before they get to the eyes of more sympathetic mods.

And it's not like we know who the sympathetic mods are before they respond to us.

Nor can we mass PM the TIF mods.

 

soo yeah, ideas have been suggested as alternatives to mass deletion but you never saw them because they got mass deleted.

Regardless, I'm not negotiating on TIF anymore.

If you want to hear the ideas, go ask on TEF.

 

So if I register on your forums as a regular person, which I've been longing to do ever since you chose to close your boards to guests, I will not be banned? You won't assume every sort of issue than anyone else might find out is because of me? If so, I'd happily join your boards and speak with you via PM to hear your ideas. It's a bit ridiculous, but if you feel that unsafe about communicating on these boards--which you shouldn't--then I will try to accommodate you.

 

And for the record, most of the moderators you assumed to take action against you haven't been the ones to do so. I know you might not like a lot of moderators here, which is bound to happen, but making baseless accusations will not be tolerated on these boards.

[obfuscator]

Also, all deleted posts are still visible to all moderators. So the so called "sympathetic" mods can still see them.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

I do have ideas for you.

And we have suggested ideas in the past in regards to this, but mods like Danq delete them before they get to the eyes of more sympathetic mods.

And it's not like we know who the sympathetic mods are before they respond to us.

Nor can we mass PM the TIF mods.

 

soo yeah, ideas have been suggested as alternatives to mass deletion but you never saw them because they got mass deleted.

Regardless, I'm not negotiating on TIF anymore.

If you want to hear the ideas, go ask on TEF.

 

So if I register on your forums as a regular person, which I've been longing to do ever since you chose to close your boards to guests, I will not be banned? You won't assume every sort of issue than anyone else might find out is because of me? If so, I'd happily join your boards and speak with you via PM to hear your ideas. It's a bit ridiculous, but if you feel that unsafe about communicating on these boards--which you shouldn't--then I will try to accommodate you.

 

And for the record, most of the moderators you assumed to take action against you haven't been the ones to do so. I know you might not like a lot of moderators here, which is bound to happen, but making baseless accusations will not be tolerated on these boards.

I haven't banned Y guy yet, nor darkdude even though they've registered accounts.

Even golvellius seems to have an account on TEF, but i haven't banned him because he hasn't done anything wrong yet.

Heck I've only banned two people on TIF so far, and one was by accident when i was still tinkering with the admin panel, and the guy has already has a fresh new account.

TIF, on the other hand, HAS banned me

I don't see what's unreasonable here.

Or are you trying to pull a guilty until proven innocent thing on me again?

 

TIF makes baseless accusations towards me all the time, take this AHK-Macro thing for example.

YOU HAVE NO BASE

otherwise you wouldn't be contacting Jagex in the first place.

 

You will speak on TEF or you will receive no constructive feedback.

That is all.

[Nifflin]

The link in in his siggy..... Oh wait...

[PoorLepRecon]

Also, all deleted posts are still visible to all moderators. So the so called "sympathetic" mods can still see them.

 

I don't browse through every deleted post. It's a huge forum full. I only see deleted posts when they are brought up for disciplinary action. Just because we can see them doesn't mean we do.

[Kimberly]

I haven't banned you yet Y guy

Heck I've only banned two people on TIF so far

 

Okay, that's all I wanted to hear. Thanks!

 

TIF HAS banned me

 

You had a brief 3 day temp ban that was later reviewed by the administration and removed from your account, it didn't even last the entirety of the duration. I would think that's proof of a proper system of checks and balances in action rather than some power hungry gestapo you imagine the staff to be. :P

 

Or are you trying to pull a guilty until proven innocent thing on me again?

 

No, I'm only going off of what I heard. If that seemed as if an action of attempting to tarnish you, I apologize. It's just that I had madesimilar statements expressing my concerns and they weren't addressed. I thought the worst, which is natural considering the climate we have to work with between us.

 

TIF makes baseless accusations towards me all the time, take this AHK-Macro thing for example.

YOU HAVE NO BASE

 

Well, we did and it was addressed at a length in this post. We're still awaiting a more formal reply to share with you all, hopefully on monday, but we did receive from Jagex staff that the scripts were against the rules. :)

[Andy]

Well, we did and it was addressed at a length in this post. We're still awaiting a more formal reply to share with you all, hopefully on monday, but we did receive from Jagex staff that the scripts were against the rules. :)

 

Yet you have failed to post it for 5 pages

[Kimberly]

Well, we did and it was addressed at a length in this post. We're still awaiting a more formal reply to share with you all, hopefully on monday, but we did receive from Jagex staff that the scripts were against the rules. :)

 

Yet you have failed to post it for 5 pages

 

Because we couldn't, from my understanding it was done via informal communication, hence why we're trying to get a more official email response from Jagex to show for you guys here. :P

[Andy]

What the hell is informal communication

to quote the past 5 pages or whatever - was it:

Pigeon

Telegraphs

Letters in the post

Morse code

Sent via donkey

 

??

[Nifflin]

 

Yet you have failed to post it for 5 pages

 

And then said that they hadn't gotten into contact with Jagex Staff on the issue and were doing so asap.

 

On another note, I would like to criticize the very opaque policies in TIF. I think it is really important for discussions, especially those between users and admins to be out in the open. I guess the "PM me if you have any responses" seems to breed confusion amongst users. It creates accountability on both sides. Transparency is something that has been proven key time and time again in the running of all sorts of institutions, TIF isn't really an exception.

[Kimberly]

What the hell is informal communication

to quote the past 5 pages or whatever - was it:

Pigeon

Telegraphs

Letters in the post

Morse code

Sent via donkey

 

??

 

From what I was told from administration, it was informal and that how exactly is being kept private to protect the person's privacy.

 

I'm personally assuming something like a quickchat room, or a text message, etc. That's what we were told.

 

Though the prospect of it being via donkey is amusing...

 

On another note, I would like to criticize the very opaque policies in TIF. I think it is really important for discussions, especially those between users and admins to be out in the open. I guess the "PM me if you have any responses" seems to breed confusion amongst users. It creates accountability on both sides. Transparency is something that has been proven key time and time again in the running of all sorts of institutions, TIF isn't really an exception.

 

That is a very common complaint we receive, but the thing is going 100% all out like disclosing user infraction details and the like are not only unfair to the users but it's a road we don't want to take. It's actually why the images we used to have replacing sigs were done away with--it's not fair to do a naming-and-shaming sort of thing.

 

The discussion gets brought up maybe once every few months of what we can do to be more open. I think the recent Administrator/Moderator spotlight done some 5 months past was the latest compromise. What would you guys like to see? I can't promise we can do all of it, but at least it can be brought up again.

 

EDIT: Can someone please tell Grimy I've PM'd him on TEF? Thanks! :D

[Danqazmlp]

I am going to say this for the umpteenth time, hopefully the last.

 

Posts criticising TIF moderation not in this thread will be removed, no questions asked.

 

There is no exception to this, whether you be Tom [bleep] or Harry. You can rant all you like about this, but you have been told.

As per forum rules, which have always been in place, off topic or inflammatory posts are also removed.

You may rant all you like, but unless it is through the proper channels, you have no base to argue as you know the rules very clearly by now.

 

 

 

That is all I am here to say as we have no more information for you regarding our messages from Jagex since what you were told yesterday.

 

Thanks.

[obfuscator]

Where exactly did we say we hadn't contacted Jagex? What we said was we had not contacted them via email. You requested an email from them verifying their opinions and we're doing what you asked for.

[Andy]

Where exactly did we say we hadn't contacted Jagex? What we said was we had not contacted them via email. You requested an email from them verifying their opinions and we're doing what you asked for.

I dont care how you bloody talk to jagex, darkdude has posted that they were in contact with jagex before they began removing signatures. If you're going to make a statement like that, back it up with evidence. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY FORM OF CONTACT WITH JAGEX HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

[obfuscator]

Where exactly did we say we hadn't contacted Jagex? What we said was we had not contacted them via email. You requested an email from them verifying their opinions and we're doing what you asked for.

I dont care how you bloody talk to jagex, darkdude has posted that they were in contact with jagex before they began removing scripts. If you're going to make a statement like that, back it up with evidence. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY FORM OF CONTACT WITH JAGEX HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

Because we cannot provide evidence of the contact we had in the form the contact was made, as stated several times previously.

 

As you asked for, we are getting the evidence of contact with Jagex. Surely you understand this takes a few days as most people don't work on weekends?

[Danqazmlp]

Where exactly did we say we hadn't contacted Jagex? What we said was we had not contacted them via email. You requested an email from them verifying their opinions and we're doing what you asked for.

I dont care how you bloody talk to jagex, darkdude has posted that they were in contact with jagex before they began removing signatures. If you're going to make a statement like that, back it up with evidence. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY FORM OF CONTACT WITH JAGEX HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

 

Then don't believe us. We have no reason to deceive you as we are not gaining anything out of it. The opposite, we are losing forum users. However, it is the rules we are going to stick to. You have heard this numerous times and until we can get a more official message is what we are sticking to.

[Andy]

Where exactly did we say we hadn't contacted Jagex? What we said was we had not contacted them via email. You requested an email from them verifying their opinions and we're doing what you asked for.

I dont care how you bloody talk to jagex, darkdude has posted that they were in contact with jagex before they began removing scripts. If you're going to make a statement like that, back it up with evidence. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY FORM OF CONTACT WITH JAGEX HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

Because we cannot provide evidence of the contact we had in the form the contact was made, as stated several times previously.

I have 0 reason to believe you have even been in contact with anyone from jagex then. Why did darkdude even say he was in contact with them and use that as a point of argument if he could not back it up with a tiny shred of evidence

 

 

As you asked for, we are getting the evidence of contact with Jagex. Surely you understand this takes a few days as most people don't work on weekends?

I am fully aware of that and i'm waiting for jagex's reply. That is not the issue i'm discussing right now - darkdude uses his alleged contact with jagex as a reason to start removing signatures and painting TEF as a site that "encourages botting", yet can not provide any evidence??

[obfuscator]

Actually, he used the multiple scripts posted there that are illegal by the admittance of your own admins to remove links as per our forum rules.

[Andy]

Actually, he used the multiple scripts posted there that are illegal by the admittance of your own admins to remove links as per our forum rules.

I'd love to know which scripts you are even talking about, because the pms i've seen are wicked's functions - which I have not seen grimy or anyone saying they're illegal (which they aren't, by the way.) The amount of ignorance you display is ridiculous - If you're talking about the fletching macro that was posted and is now edited to be 4 inputs to 3 outputs, my god I am wasting my time here.

[Stev]

I just viewed the large post in which you pointed out every little bit of the AutoHotkey. and Wicked's RuneScape Functions... And Scripts in which you didn't like. I found it hysterical that each and every one of my functions was listed.

 

Now tell me, what was it about my functions that made them "against the rules"? Was it the fact that they don't obey the 1:1 rule?

 

Now, forget what ever the hell you were thinking if it was along the lines, "Ofc, you idiot. It's obvious that they disobey the 1:1 rule". Yes, my functions could technically produce hundreds of actions. Does this make them wrong? Not at all. Why aren't they wrong, you ask? Because I do not set the required number on inputs to call each function.

 

I created the functions for other to copy and paste, so instead of having to make hotkeys with incredible amounts of duplicate information, and having the hassle of searching coordinates and such, it's a simple copy and paste.

 

Look at the function Click_M(). It right clicks, moves the mouse, and clicks again. Against the rules? Nope. The reason is because it's up to the user of such functions to require the same amount of inputs as actions generated. So, the following is legal:

^+m:: ;~ 3 actions are required to call Click_M(). Pressing Ctrl. Pressing Shift. And pressing M.
  Click_M(1) ;~ This function produces 3 actions. 3:3.
Return

 

Just because a user may not want to require 3 inputs does not make my functions against the rules. If this was the case, mousekeys would be illegal because they too can be set and used against the rules. It's all up to the user. If I post a link to a C++ forum, will you remove it too? It can be used to control mouse movements and send/receive keystrokes.

[Kimberly]

The truth of the matter is that even if we had this email, what would have happened is that these links would have still been removed in the meantime while communication was maintained with TEF admins as an attempt to be more proactive in our moderation style, which many experienced super moderators have been urging we adapt to. You can see that this is not a very different than the approach we've taken now.

 

Yes, it might be seen as a shortcoming that we did not have an email for you. You might not like that at all. And you might not believe someone, because at this point being so embroiled in conflict there's no reason for either party to trust the other. But believe it or not, there are people on this staff with integrity and pride, and we wouldn't be taking action on a communication that didn't exist.

[Nifflin]

We understand that some staff members have integrity and pride, however not all of them do. That is why people are dubious of claims made by certain staff members.