TIF is bit over-moderated

[jimmy_jim]

I still don't understand the logic. If two individuals are angry at each other, how is whisking the posts away to an invisible forum going to help resolve the issue? Then you follow up with a PM to the individual saying "Hayyy...stop that"

We also do a lot of in-thread moderating but in most cases, if the posts aren't removed and a moderator just comes in asking people to stop, people will continue the discussion anyway because the posts are still there, taunting them to reply. This is particularly true if it's a flame war and people are insulting each other or jumping down their throats. But by removing the posts, people don't feel inclined to respond to each other anymore since the posts are no longer there.

 

I still feel like this solution is like cutting off your finger if you get a splinter. What is the big deal if people keep responding to each other? If anyone is put off by the discussion they can just leave the thread. I think if people are choosing to participate in a flame war it is the moderators job to resolve the dispute, not simply hide it.

 

The problem is that it takes time and patience to resolve a dispute. It takes seconds to click "move to the black hole forums" or whatever it is that you do with the posts.

 

We see a lot of posts such as "No, you're an idiot because it's meant to be like this. Get outside nerd." Leaving it in the thread would just leave it open for more arguments, people just can't help but reply to a post such as that. In cases where it isn't so bad we do leave an in thread warning but it doesn't always stop the flaming so we have to remove the posts, then it stops.

 

And if two users, or a group of users are having a large dispute we will private message them and try and work something out, but users having large disputes does not happen too often thankfully! We also generally try and leave threads for users to sort out problems between themselves, unless it gets serious with personal attacks/threats.

[Assume Nothing]

I still don't understand the logic. If two individuals are angry at each other, how is whisking the posts away to an invisible forum going to help resolve the issue? Then you follow up with a PM to the individual saying "Hayyy...stop that"

We also do a lot of in-thread moderating but in most cases, if the posts aren't removed and a moderator just comes in asking people to stop, people will continue the discussion anyway because the posts are still there, taunting them to reply. This is particularly true if it's a flame war and people are insulting each other or jumping down their throats. But by removing the posts, people don't feel inclined to respond to each other anymore since the posts are no longer there.

 

I still feel like this solution is like cutting off your finger if you get a splinter. What is the big deal if people keep responding to each other? If anyone is put off by the discussion they can just leave the thread. I think if people are choosing to participate in a flame war it is the moderators job to resolve the dispute, not simply hide it.

 

The problem is that it takes time and patience to resolve a dispute. It takes seconds to click "move to the black hole forums" or whatever it is that you do with the posts.

 

We see a lot of posts such as "No, you're an idiot because it's meant to be like this. Get outside nerd." Leaving it in the thread would just leave it open for more arguments, people just can't help but reply to a post such as that. In cases where it isn't so bad we do leave an in thread warning but it doesn't always stop the flaming so we have to remove the posts, then it stops.

 

And if two users, or a group of users are having a large dispute we will private message them and try and work something out, but users having large disputes does not happen too often thankfully! We also generally try and leave threads for users to sort out problems between themselves, unless it gets serious with personal attacks/threats.

 

I'd like to quote the example where an argument about supporting the position of the 54 year old male led to some... quite serious accusations.

[dukky]

http://forum.tip.it/topic/292463-mining-smithing/page__view__findpost__p__4823095 I was commenting that people weren't reply with efficient things, even though on the sticky on that forum it explicitly states that that is what you must do...

[homer205]

As soon as one of the bans was made there were already mods saying it wasn't deserved, and it quite obviously wasn't. The other two bans are actually quite borderline, but because the situation they were reversed. There was no riot that I saw, but those threads in General Discussion were already made quite a while before the bans were handed out which were from posts made in those threads. There was no banning rampage, it was 3 people banned by two different staff members.

If the system was more transparent, facts such as who did the banning wouln't need to be questioned, saving moderator time.

 

The question I'd like answered is, what good would that do? Making the whole thing transparent actually sounds counterproductive, since now not only do you have to pass along information about a particular user's ban, you also have to deal with people who think/feel that it was unfair.

 

This leads me to believe that, instead of transparency between staff->users, there should be more information available to admins about who was banned and for what reason. In my mind, moderators are free to disagree with the bannings, but doing so in a public forum usually leaves a black eye for the entire process. Kind of like this.

The passing along of information wouldn't require more than a one off effort as this information is already stored for mods to review.

 

In response to the claim that mods would have to deal with people thinking bans are unfair, they've already had to do that, did you miss the uproar earlier? Plus, the threads which contain discipline history could be limited so only the person who it concerns and mods would be able to post there. The prohibition on discussing bans in other threads could remain.

 

Also it's quite frustrating to make a post in response to a mods question then have the only person who responds not actually be a staff member.

[jimmy_jim]

[spoiler=Quotes]

As soon as one of the bans was made there were already mods saying it wasn't deserved, and it quite obviously wasn't. The other two bans are actually quite borderline, but because the situation they were reversed. There was no riot that I saw, but those threads in General Discussion were already made quite a while before the bans were handed out which were from posts made in those threads. There was no banning rampage, it was 3 people banned by two different staff members.

If the system was more transparent, facts such as who did the banning wouln't need to be questioned, saving moderator time.

 

The question I'd like answered is, what good would that do? Making the whole thing transparent actually sounds counterproductive, since now not only do you have to pass along information about a particular user's ban, you also have to deal with people who think/feel that it was unfair.

 

This leads me to believe that, instead of transparency between staff->users, there should be more information available to admins about who was banned and for what reason. In my mind, moderators are free to disagree with the bannings, but doing so in a public forum usually leaves a black eye for the entire process. Kind of like this.

The passing along of information wouldn't require more than a one off effort as this information is already stored for mods to review.

 

In response to the claim that mods would have to deal with people thinking bans are unfair, they've already had to do that, did you miss the uproar earlier? Plus, the threads which contain discipline history could be limited so only the person who it concerns and mods would be able to post there. The prohibition on discussing bans in other threads could remain.

 

Also it's quite frustrating to make a post in response to a mods question then have the only person who responds not actually be a staff member.

 

 

There's no need to complain about it, it hasn't been very long since you posted...I was writing an in depth response but had some studying to do first, we're all volunteers remember? I do apologise though as I replied to someone else before you even though you posted first.

 

I'm not sure how the fact that the bans were reversed is a sign that the system is working, if it was working, wouldn't they have not been banned? Also, I'm curious as to why mods/admins must discuss an unbanning at length but not a banning (as evidenced by the speed of bans compared to unbanning-not complaining about the length to unban, pointing out the difference in the two times). If it's an issue with somebody continuing to spam/troll/post graphic content, could a 1-6 hour mute of sorts not be applied? This would allow them to have access to the message centre etc still.

 

As we've said before, bans are very rarely reversed like this, and the system has been in place for close to 10 years now without any major problems, which is quite admirable considering the size of the forum.

 

About discussing bans at a length, that's a fair point. A large amount of the time we do discuss them, especially if they're going to be lengthy bans on users who have contributed a lot to the community. Unless the ban is very obvious (spambots, graphic pictures) there usually are discussions between at least 4 or 5 Super Mods/Admins and Local/Global mods. As I said, this was a one off and won't happen again.

 

Thirdly about someone who's spamming, trolling and posting graphic content..If they're posting graphic content (i.e. Pornography or Gory pictures) it's a straight ban, no matter how long they've been on the forums. Also, with people spamming/trolling we're not going to go ahead and give them a ban on their first offence, we almost always give two warnings first before then giving a repeat offender a 3 day, or week long ban. Which they can appeal without logging into their account. I don't see why they'd need access to their account to get to the message center. This would also make it harder for Super Mods to ban, because we don't have complete access to the Admin Control Panel.

 

Not meaning to be disrespectful, but just because none of you will make the same mistake again, the same can't be said of any new moderators a change in moderators will happen eventually. A change in policy would effect this and hopefully outlast the current moderator/admin team/some of its members anyway.

 

With the current team I can't see a case happening where all of us leave then a whole new lot needs to be brought in, we're all fairly active. With the previous ones the activity was so low that the administration had to organise so people could apply for a moderator position, which is how I became a mod, and another 9 current mods did, I'm sure there will always be enough experienced mods to teach and guide any new ones. I'm curious though, what type of change in policy to you propose?

 

I think having a separate forum for warnings and bans would be appropriate as it would solve a few issues. For one, it would allow offensive posts to be moved from threads while still providing a record for users to refer to as if you don't see a post before it is moved, it can be very difficult to track what is going on and I believe is part of the reason that such a ruckus was made in the past view days; people were confused, even after all the protesting, many people don't have the full picture. Secondly, having it as a separate forum would avoid an excess of messages that somebody mentioned earlier, only those who are interested would have to see them. To avoid the offence of anything in these forums, everything could be in hide tags or some other check could be made when entering that area. Also it could be considered an offence to quote from this area.

 

The reason we remove them is because they shouldn't be seen by other users. I don't see why another user would have to refer to a post which someone was warned for? There's no reason for users to track bans and warnings when they have nothing to do with them. A lot of the things we warn/ban for are personal attacks as well, so allowing people to have access to them could cause hurt feelings, and this is the whole thing we're trying to avoid. I'm sorry, but I don't support everyone having viewing access to removed posts. It's important that all mods have access to removed posts, (it's not possible to completely delete posts from the forum) and we do, and that's the way it should stay.

 

Also, it's not only rule breaking posts removed. Sometimes posts are removed from private boards, such as from the staff forums which can have sensitive information which there's no reason for users to have access to.

 

 

As soon as one of the bans was made there were already mods saying it wasn't deserved, and it quite obviously wasn't. The other two bans are actually quite borderline, but because the situation they were reversed. There was no riot that I saw, but those threads in General Discussion were already made quite a while before the bans were handed out which were from posts made in those threads. There was no banning rampage, it was 3 people banned by two different staff members.

If the system was more transparent, facts such as who did the banning wouln't need to be questioned, saving moderator time.

 

Who did the banning shouldn't need to be questioned, and I'm not questioning them, and no one else should, the moderation and the admins that work together as one team, I don't like seeing people singled out. It's a bit late for that now though, and looking back I wish it had been approached differently but it was hard to know what exactly was going on.

 

If every single person on the forums knew who has banned who it doesn't really solve anything. A lot of the time it will be a group decision on the ban, then someone will send the email, it's not 'them' who banned the person, it was a team decision. I think this is where we went wrong with these bans, but it won't happen again, as I've mentioned previously.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

The passing along of information wouldn't require more than a one off effort as this information is already stored for mods to review.

 

In response to the claim that mods would have to deal with people thinking bans are unfair, they've already had to do that, did you miss the uproar earlier? Plus, the threads which contain discipline history could be limited so only the person who it concerns and mods would be able to post there. The prohibition on discussing bans in other threads could remain.

 

Also it's quite frustrating to make a post in response to a mods question then have the only person who responds not actually be a staff member.

 

Yet you didn't answer the question. I asked what the benefit of that would be. Again, I've stated that I don't see a benefit to it; it's information that doesn't need to be in the public's eye. More tersely, I couldn't care less who was banned from TIF for what reason and when - it just doesn't benefit me to know this. And, more times than not, a player is banned from a forum for clear violation of a rule instead of on a whim - and that's what the majority of "posts" or "reports" or what have you would be like.

 

I wasn't here for the falling out. I don't know what happened, and who did what. I do maintain though that if Mods/Admins disagreed with the way something was handled, then it should have been kept in a place that's exclusive to them (staff forums), and not in public.

[homer205]

[hide]

[spoiler=Quotes]

As soon as one of the bans was made there were already mods saying it wasn't deserved, and it quite obviously wasn't. The other two bans are actually quite borderline, but because the situation they were reversed. There was no riot that I saw, but those threads in General Discussion were already made quite a while before the bans were handed out which were from posts made in those threads. There was no banning rampage, it was 3 people banned by two different staff members.

If the system was more transparent, facts such as who did the banning wouln't need to be questioned, saving moderator time.

 

The question I'd like answered is, what good would that do? Making the whole thing transparent actually sounds counterproductive, since now not only do you have to pass along information about a particular user's ban, you also have to deal with people who think/feel that it was unfair.

 

This leads me to believe that, instead of transparency between staff->users, there should be more information available to admins about who was banned and for what reason. In my mind, moderators are free to disagree with the bannings, but doing so in a public forum usually leaves a black eye for the entire process. Kind of like this.

The passing along of information wouldn't require more than a one off effort as this information is already stored for mods to review.

 

In response to the claim that mods would have to deal with people thinking bans are unfair, they've already had to do that, did you miss the uproar earlier? Plus, the threads which contain discipline history could be limited so only the person who it concerns and mods would be able to post there. The prohibition on discussing bans in other threads could remain.

 

Also it's quite frustrating to make a post in response to a mods question then have the only person who responds not actually be a staff member.

 

 

There's no need to complain about it, it hasn't been very long since you posted...I was writing an in depth response but had some studying to do first, we're all volunteers remember? I do apologise though as I replied to someone else before you even though you posted first.

 

I'm not sure how the fact that the bans were reversed is a sign that the system is working, if it was working, wouldn't they have not been banned? Also, I'm curious as to why mods/admins must discuss an unbanning at length but not a banning (as evidenced by the speed of bans compared to unbanning-not complaining about the length to unban, pointing out the difference in the two times). If it's an issue with somebody continuing to spam/troll/post graphic content, could a 1-6 hour mute of sorts not be applied? This would allow them to have access to the message centre etc still.

 

As we've said before, bans are very rarely reversed like this, and the system has been in place for close to 10 years now without any major problems, which is quite admirable considering the size of the forum.

 

About discussing bans at a length, that's a fair point. A large amount of the time we do discuss them, especially if they're going to be lengthy bans on users who have contributed a lot to the community. Unless the ban is very obvious (spambots, graphic pictures) there usually are discussions between at least 4 or 5 Super Mods/Admins and Local/Global mods. As I said, this was a one off and won't happen again.

 

Thirdly about someone who's spamming, trolling and posting graphic content..If they're posting graphic content (i.e. Pornography or Gory pictures) it's a straight ban, no matter how long they've been on the forums. Also, with people spamming/trolling we're not going to go ahead and give them a ban on their first offence, we almost always give two warnings first before then giving a repeat offender a 3 day, or week long ban. Which they can appeal without logging into their account. I don't see why they'd need access to their account to get to the message center. This would also make it harder for Super Mods to ban, because we don't have complete access to the Admin Control Panel.

 

Not meaning to be disrespectful, but just because none of you will make the same mistake again, the same can't be said of any new moderators a change in moderators will happen eventually. A change in policy would effect this and hopefully outlast the current moderator/admin team/some of its members anyway.

 

With the current team I can't see a case happening where all of us leave then a whole new lot needs to be brought in, we're all fairly active. With the previous ones the activity was so low that the administration had to organise so people could apply for a moderator position, which is how I became a mod, and another 9 current mods did, I'm sure there will always be enough experienced mods to teach and guide any new ones. I'm curious though, what type of change in policy to you propose?

 

I think having a separate forum for warnings and bans would be appropriate as it would solve a few issues. For one, it would allow offensive posts to be moved from threads while still providing a record for users to refer to as if you don't see a post before it is moved, it can be very difficult to track what is going on and I believe is part of the reason that such a ruckus was made in the past view days; people were confused, even after all the protesting, many people don't have the full picture. Secondly, having it as a separate forum would avoid an excess of messages that somebody mentioned earlier, only those who are interested would have to see them. To avoid the offence of anything in these forums, everything could be in hide tags or some other check could be made when entering that area. Also it could be considered an offence to quote from this area.

 

The reason we remove them is because they shouldn't be seen by other users. I don't see why another user would have to refer to a post which someone was warned for? There's no reason for users to track bans and warnings when they have nothing to do with them. A lot of the things we warn/ban for are personal attacks as well, so allowing people to have access to them could cause hurt feelings, and this is the whole thing we're trying to avoid. I'm sorry, but I don't support everyone having viewing access to removed posts. It's important that all mods have access to removed posts, (it's not possible to completely delete posts from the forum) and we do, and that's the way it should stay.

 

Also, it's not only rule breaking posts removed. Sometimes posts are removed from private boards, such as from the staff forums which can have sensitive information which there's no reason for users to have access to.

 

 

As soon as one of the bans was made there were already mods saying it wasn't deserved, and it quite obviously wasn't. The other two bans are actually quite borderline, but because the situation they were reversed. There was no riot that I saw, but those threads in General Discussion were already made quite a while before the bans were handed out which were from posts made in those threads. There was no banning rampage, it was 3 people banned by two different staff members.

If the system was more transparent, facts such as who did the banning wouln't need to be questioned, saving moderator time.

 

Who did the banning shouldn't need to be questioned, and I'm not questioning them, and no one else should, the moderation and the admins that work together as one team, I don't like seeing people singled out. It's a bit late for that now though, and looking back I wish it had been approached differently but it was hard to know what exactly was going on.

 

If every single person on the forums knew who has banned who it doesn't really solve anything. A lot of the time it will be a group decision on the ban, then someone will send the email, it's not 'them' who banned the person, it was a team decision. I think this is where we went wrong with these bans, but it won't happen again, as I've mentioned previously.

[/hide]

 

Thanks Jimmy, yeah it was the posting to others which irked me a little.

 

I only mentioned the message centre because I thought they would need it in order to contact moderators, as you say they can do that anyway, that part could be ignored.

 

I assume the previous mod team also thought they'd have time to pass on wisdom to the current mod team too, I know at least one of the team has retired from runescape. It just seems an advisable thing to do. As far as suggestions go (beyond the seeing of ban offenses which you've already rejected). Some way for an average user to tell who's banned would be appreciated, either by having it on there profile, or as a compromise between the separate forum idea, have a sticky somewhere with a simple list of the person banned, and length of it. Secondly, as you say there are usually discussions between 4-5 mods before a ban is made, why not make it a requirement that a player can not be banned without a vote from the mod team. You could have either a system where you must reach 5 votes or have a majority in order for the player to be banned. Graphic content bans could be handled in the same way they are currently as there is less discretion required for those.

 

I wasn't meaning that another user would have to refer to posts made in there, just that as they could be used to start arguments, referring to them elsewhere could be made against the rules. Either under the banner of trolling or discussing other players bans. Sensitive information could be censored so long as it is noted as being censored. I think this should apply for all posts which have been removed from the main boards too, say who's posts were removed and for what (in general terms), but so people know and understand what has happened. It's extremely frustrating to read threads and have parts of it removed and then people referring to these parts and not understand what has happened.

 

I'm not questioning who did the banning, just saying that people who were was part of all the commotion and if they knew then maybe it would've been lessened somewhat.

 

The passing along of information wouldn't require more than a one off effort as this information is already stored for mods to review.

 

In response to the claim that mods would have to deal with people thinking bans are unfair, they've already had to do that, did you miss the uproar earlier? Plus, the threads which contain discipline history could be limited so only the person who it concerns and mods would be able to post there. The prohibition on discussing bans in other threads could remain.

 

Also it's quite frustrating to make a post in response to a mods question then have the only person who responds not actually be a staff member.

 

Yet you didn't answer the question. I asked what the benefit of that would be. Again, I've stated that I don't see a benefit to it; it's information that doesn't need to be in the public's eye. More tersely, I couldn't care less who was banned from TIF for what reason and when - it just doesn't benefit me to know this. And, more times than not, a player is banned from a forum for clear violation of a rule instead of on a whim - and that's what the majority of "posts" or "reports" or what have you would be like.

 

I wasn't here for the falling out. I don't know what happened, and who did what. I do maintain though that if Mods/Admins disagreed with the way something was handled, then it should have been kept in a place that's exclusive to them (staff forums), and not in public.

 

The benefit is that it wouldn't have angered people in the way they were and reduced the questions from those on the sidelines wondering what had just happened. I agree with you though, most of the forum would be clear violations which have been dealt with and nobody would care about them. But you need them there as the precedent for times such as this when the information would be helpful, you can't just have individual users history as a board announcement.

[tripsis]

It used to be listed on someone's profile when they were permanently or temporarily banned. We don't do that anymore but maybe it's something we could consider (zero promises).

[homer205]

It used to be listed on someone's profile when they were permanently or temporarily banned. We don't do that anymore but maybe it's something we could consider (zero promises).

Glad to hear that it used to be like that, thought I was going crazy for a bit. It seems like a quick and simple way to at least provide some information about what's going on. It's not like the person can say they're banned after all.

[weezcake]

I've left the staff for a bit now, but I still lurk here and there. From what I've seen, the staff is doing a decent job at moderating and watching posts, especially given the population and demographics of the Runescape audience. I have to head out in a few minutes so I'll just say this - work on your public image. :)

[foursideking]

I actually think that the mods are treating this forum too much like a k-8 elementary school rather than the middle school that this place theoretically is. We're not allowed to post anything that would be 'offensive to anyone', which makes no real sense due to the fact that 'anyone' could easily be offended by any remote thing in another person's post, whine, and theoretically get their way. I can't even post some of my arguements on these 'boards' anymore because apparently some people could easily be offended if I even go into slight detail on my topic.

 

The moderators themselves, well, they're interesting. I've met 17 mods in the time that I've been on these forums, and can honestly say that it's only 'worth' arguing with maybe 2 of them, due to the others either stonewalling, ignoring, or generally refusing to acknowledge the fact that their ban was unfair (the 2 'arguable' mods being das, and tripsis when she's not pretending to be busy with runescape).

 

As I've said before, this forum needs to let go of their 'christian elementary school' ideology. With the average age on these forums being just over 18, and with the general population of non-runescape tif users consisting of 19+ people, this should change.

[jimmy_jim]

I actually think that the mods are treating this forum too much like a k-8 elementary school rather than the middle school that this place theoretically is. We're not allowed to post anything that would be 'offensive to anyone', which makes no real sense due to the fact that 'anyone' could easily be offended by any remote thing in another person's post, whine, and theoretically get their way. I can't even post some of my arguements on these 'boards' anymore because apparently some people could easily be offended if I even go into slight detail on my topic.

 

There shouldn't be any need to be offensive to anyone. I don't see why we should allow it, if someone can't join a debate without being offensive then they probably shouldn't be here. We don't just remove things if someone says stuff is offensive to them, if I said that I don't like being called an 'Aussie' and find it offensive would the mods start removing posts where people referred to me as an Aussie? They wouldn't, and it's silly to think they would. We remove things that can quite obviously be offensive to people.

 

I don't know about people being offended if you go into detail on your topic, so I can't comment on that.

 

The moderators themselves, well, they're interesting. I've met 17 mods in the time that I've been on these forums, and can honestly say that it's only 'worth' arguing with maybe 2 of them, due to the others either stonewalling, ignoring, or generally refusing to acknowledge the fact that their ban was unfair (the 2 'arguable' mods being das, and tripsis when she's not pretending to be busy with runescape).

 

Only 4 moderators have logged contact with you, and I don't believe I've had contact with you through private messages so I don't know where you get that only two are approachable out of the 17. If you do think you're getting nowhere with a staff member and that they're being uncooperative just message an admin to sort it out ;)

 

As I've said before, this forum needs to let go of their 'christian elementary school' ideology. With the average age on these forums being just over 18, and with the general population of non-runescape tif users consisting of 19+ people, this should change.

 

We allow quite a few threads such as the 'Hot celebrities/models!! : ) Post them here!!' thread to go on, so I don't know why you think we don't allow anything directed at the older users. And I don't know how you worked out the average age and the other thing, it's easy to lie about your age on the internet.

 

This forum has always been made so that people of all ages and cultures can browse here without feeling uncomfortable, and I hope it's always like that.

[tripsis]

Jimmy answered everything very well, I think :) We also strive to make it so that our forums can be safe for school and work. If we allowed too many risqué images/other content, then it would be harder to browse Tip.It in those locations.

 

If you have more specific examples of things that you would like to post but cannot for whatever reason, please mention them. With things like this, it's easier for us to respond and consider the possibility of change if we have specific examples/ideas/topics to work with.

 

and tripsis when she's not pretending to be busy with runescape

wat. I have no idea where that came from :P

[Dire_Wolf]

Another bad idea from Dire Wolf it seems?

 

If left click pickpocketing was suddenly implemented, this still wouldn't be a very good idea. I don't think people are going to want to stand around for hours unless it pays very well. And if they demand high pay, I don't see who would want to pay them for such terrible thieving xp anyway. Not to mention, if you fail a pickpocket, the NPC hits you and stops all combat, meaning they will start walking again. Terrible idea.

This is a quote from Easter carrot topic i made. I thought i had found a use for it. Anyhow, it was not a topic about the most effiencient experience for thieving. And the use Easter carrot had, i thought it could be a alternative way for players to earn some cash while AFKING and helping a pickpocketer. Anyhow, without thinking of the topic he comments on it just because "It's not effiencient". EFfiency was not the subject. So i don't know about you Grimy, but people assosciated with you tend to flame.

 

Anyhow, i reported this to Moderation, and told my reasons for why. It's not been removed.

[Kimberly]

I don't see the logic in reposting the exact same thing you want removed if it's truly so offensive/rule-breaking. Surely it's not that offensive to you if you can repost it so casually in an unrelated thread.

 

Maybe you could've pmed a mod/admin and found out why it wasn't removed or...hell, if the report is still open. That seems far more logical, and doesn't undermine your own arguments.

[Dire_Wolf]

I don't see the logic in reposting the exact same thing you want removed if it's truly so offensive/rule-breaking. Surely it's not that offensive to you if you can repost it so casually in an unrelated thread.

 

Maybe you could've pmed a mod/admin and found out why it wasn't removed or...hell, if the report is still open. That seems far more logical, and doesn't undermine your own arguments.

So just because i find it offensive, i am not allowed to post it so casually? Funny. I reported the post and gave reason why i did so. I am not gonna go and pm a Mod or Admin to get a reply. That's not my job ( i sent in report), and this topic is about telling about what you think of Tifs moderation.

 

And this is not what we are talking about, but it's ironic how i read some posts where Effiency co claimed they were flamed, yet they themself view topics that don't interest them and leave a unecessary comments. I am a person who like to discuss, and if i am wrong about something, i will admit it. And in my experience, effiency co are not always in a topic to discuss. They are there to give the message "We know better than you, so accept it already. Your stupid".

 

With that said, Tip.it should be strict on commentating. People tend to get away with posting flame posts which aren't considered flameable, because it has relevant text in it. I think if someone continues to make trouble with irelevant texts/reply without argument or that's not elaborated, then they should get dealt with.

[tripsis]

This topic is mostly about general policies and staff behavior. Specific instances/posts/users are better sorted out through PM since talking about specific posts/users in public can lead to more chaotic discussions and flame wars. So if you want to discuss it, please PM me and we can talk about it in detail :)

 

However, I will say two things here. First, we cannot always reply to the reporter to explain what happened with their report (if action was taken, if not, if not then why, etc.). Honestly it takes a lot of time with all the reports we receive. But maybe in cases where no action is required this could be something we try to improve upon.

 

Secondly, you talked about how your thread was not about efficiency. The RuneScape Metagame Forum is a forum for efficiency. As stated in the RuneScape Metagame forum rules:

 

The focus of this forum is discussing and providing accurate data and collaborating to find the best and most efficient methods available.

 

So that could be a reason for the efficiency-related comments you received. If you want to discuss that particular post/thread in greater detail, you may PM me :)

[Dire_Wolf]

Ok. I read the description of the forum:

For serious discussion/research focused on efficiency, innovative & emergent gameplay, and high-level RuneScape content.

 

I thought i had come across a use for easter carrot.

[Sy_Accursed]

Ok. I read the description of the forum:

For serious discussion/research focused on efficiency, innovative & emergent gameplay, and high-level RuneScape content.

 

I thought i had come across a use for easter carrot.

 

Metagaming is about innovative; but it is mostly about mathematical efficiency (and innovation within that field).

Hence using easter carrot in that way while it may of been an innovative idea was not innovative to metagamer as picking pocketing isn't the most efficient method and such a small methodological change couldn't make it the best.

[Dire_Wolf]

Ok. I read the description of the forum:

For serious discussion/research focused on efficiency, innovative & emergent gameplay, and high-level RuneScape content.

 

I thought i had come across a use for easter carrot.

 

Metagaming is about innovative; but it is mostly about mathematical efficiency (and innovation within that field).

Hence using easter carrot in that way while it may of been an innovative idea was not innovative to metagamer as picking pocketing isn't the most efficient method and such a small methodological change couldn't make it the best.

Thanks for the explanation :thumbup:

[Youmu]

It used to be listed on someone's profile when they were permanently or temporarily banned. We don't do that anymore but maybe it's something we could consider (zero promises).

Yes, I would really love it if that feature came back. Would allow bans to be slightly more transparent than it is already.

 

Speaking of which, in my opinion, after a user has been (temp) banned, we should do a community discussion about whether or not said user should be (temp) banned or not, and give reasonings on both sides. This would make the community a lot more involved and won't just limit this to simply part of the staff.

[Racheya]

Speaking of which, in my opinion, after a user has been (temp) banned, we should do a community discussion about whether or not said user should be (temp) banned or not, and give reasonings on both sides. This would make the community a lot more involved and won't just limit this to simply part of the staff.

 

I have to say that would be an extremely bad idea. There's no way the community can judge on whether or not a user should be banned without knowing information on what they did wrong and their history of incidents. This is information that shouldn't really be shared. Yes, there is room for transparency, but certainly not allowing non-staff to make decisions on moderation issues like that.

[Bows]

Speaking of which, in my opinion, after a user has been (temp) banned, we should do a community discussion about whether or not said user should be (temp) banned or not, and give reasonings on both sides. This would make the community a lot more involved and won't just limit this to simply part of the staff.

 

I have to say that would be an extremely bad idea. There's no way the community can judge on whether or not a user should be banned without knowing information on what they did wrong and their history of incidents. This is information that shouldn't really be shared. Yes, there is room for transparency, but certainly not allowing non-staff to make decisions on moderation issues like that.

I think that's a great idea, actually. There's always the problem that mods/admins only see the bad posts that a user makes while not always seeing his/her active contributions to the site/forums. Having the general public A.K.A the regular users here, give their opinion on why or why not a user should or should not be banned would be a perfect way to really see the things the user in question does that the moderators and administrators don't see.

 

I hope this post makes sense. I just woke up and have a cold. <_<

[obfuscator]

Speaking of which, in my opinion, after a user has been (temp) banned, we should do a community discussion about whether or not said user should be (temp) banned or not, and give reasonings on both sides. This would make the community a lot more involved and won't just limit this to simply part of the staff.

 

I have to say that would be an extremely bad idea. There's no way the community can judge on whether or not a user should be banned without knowing information on what they did wrong and their history of incidents. This is information that shouldn't really be shared. Yes, there is room for transparency, but certainly not allowing non-staff to make decisions on moderation issues like that.

I think that's a great idea, actually. There's always the problem that mods/admins only see the bad posts that a user makes while not always seeing his/her active contributions to the site/forums. Having the general public A.K.A the regular users here, give their opinion on why or why not a user should or should not be banned would be a perfect way to really see the things the user in question does that the moderators and administrators don't see.

Mods and admins can see every single post a user makes.

 

This idea is awful. It leads to blatant favoritism and unfair banning. The bottom line is that if you break the rules repeatedly after warning, you get banned. That's it. It doesn't matter if you've made a guide, and shouldn't.

 

Just as in real life, where someone isn't allowed to murder because they own a children's charity, so here do we enforce the rules largely regardless of whatever positives the person may have as well.

[Bows]

Speaking of which, in my opinion, after a user has been (temp) banned, we should do a community discussion about whether or not said user should be (temp) banned or not, and give reasonings on both sides. This would make the community a lot more involved and won't just limit this to simply part of the staff.

 

I have to say that would be an extremely bad idea. There's no way the community can judge on whether or not a user should be banned without knowing information on what they did wrong and their history of incidents. This is information that shouldn't really be shared. Yes, there is room for transparency, but certainly not allowing non-staff to make decisions on moderation issues like that.

I think that's a great idea, actually. There's always the problem that mods/admins only see the bad posts that a user makes while not always seeing his/her active contributions to the site/forums. Having the general public A.K.A the regular users here, give their opinion on why or why not a user should or should not be banned would be a perfect way to really see the things the user in question does that the moderators and administrators don't see.

Mods and admins can see every single post a user makes.

So you're telling me that you look in every single board and sub-board everyday and see every single post every user makes? If that's true, I applaud you.

 

Otherwise; it's impossible to know. Obviously you can do some digging, but you can't really know every single post every single user makes.