It is a temporary ban, which is what I meant. I don't think Staxx should be forcefully removed from the site for any length of time for his post, let alone a week, and the same goes for many of the previously mentioned situations in which severity has been handed out, when it would have been far more appropriate (in my opinion) to remove/edit the content without severity, or inform the individual that their post isn't up to the standards of the site/forum/thread so they can rectify it themselves.

I think in most situations it is better for the staff to communicate with words rather than punishments.

This is what I was getting at by mentioning that the rules have flaws. My answers (in order) would be no, yes and no, and no. This is consistent with my moderation decision.


Slippery slope and alarmism as nobody thinks that Staxx should be banned. But, if someone were to hypothetically go into ten topics and post a "never heard of this", then he is probably a troll and a dick (or really dense) and I would hope that the member gets suspended. We can see that Staxx specifically is neither a dick nor a troll, and by giving him a severity point I am not making any sort of remark on his character. His character has been brought into the argument and dismissed by just about everyone as irrelevant. Severity helps moderators to keep track of minor offenses such that they will add up over time. If someone just made a mistake, then it will decay and does not matter. Probabilistically speaking, it is almost certain that such a thing will happen in Staxx's case.

As far as the PR side of moderation goes, I agree there are improvements to be made. Unfortunately, if you see 1 severity as 10% out of here, then that is your interpretation. But, that is getting off-topic anyway and I have a lot more to say about moderation in general anyway that I won't get into now.


Azrael just said that he didn't feel the moderation was selective and that he didn't feel it was unwarranted.


It was brought up in the case that your moderated post was actually a question about what Community is in disguise. This suspicion is reasonable since you did not know what Community was but you have claimed to have an interest in the topic. My purpose in citing the rule was to say that if that were the case, then you can consider your post to have been deleted on those grounds.


Yes, my discretion as explained here:
And this, as well:

Though I feel at this point my (and Roy's) reasoning has deviated far enough from the letter of the law that the rules should be amended in some way.

Read your post again from the perspective of someone who wasn't moderated a few days ago in a situation he thought was flagrantly unfair. Read it from the perspective of someone who sees only a minor infraction, a possible slight overreaction by the moderator, and an extremely long-winded, unnecessary, futile overreaction from you. Your post is trying to convince us that all the moderation on the sight is bad, based on two or three examples. You're putting words in the moderators mouths, inflating your own importance and ignoring the reality of the situation. For instance:
It isn't.
This is so touchy-feely (feelly? feel-e?) I can hardly believe you wrote it. If a post breaks the rules, it gets deleted at the discretion of the moderator, he can say what the offense is, then the poster can re-post better.
So? That's what severity decay is for.
Both of these questions are important when moderating.
Its about as user-friendly as it can get, without moderating at all.
This is outright false. Maybe the moderator isn't doing his job right and deserves to be called out for this, but a post breaking the rules is a post breaking the rules.

Replace every time you used "the user" or "the member" or "the site" in your post with "Azrael" to get some idea of my perspective. It isn't kind to you. That's why I say unfounded rhetoric, you're trying to convince us that the aggregate site moderation is bad, when really all I see is that you have a problem with Jack]RCDF or whoever it was that moderated you. Those of us who have been here at SEN for years and remember jerks like Devilesk see your problem as little more than whining. The system is designed so people like Devilesk get banned, not so people like Azrael or Staxx or even Vrael have a perfect 0-severity record 100% of the time.

Edit: As of this post I have 1 severity.

Edit2: Hell, maybe Azrael's right. What do I know anyway?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2012, 9:39 am by Vrael.

I believe this was pointed out to you earlier in the Shoutbox, but your rhetoric here isn't exactly accurate, either. A suspended member can still visit the site, browse the forums, download maps, etc.; they simply cannot post anywhere (it's essentially a read-only mode for a short amount of time), which is not the same as being "forcefully removed" from the site. And nobody's saying staxx should be suspended for one minor offense, but if he had done this (posting with disregard to a moderator's warning) ten times, it becomes reasonable to take such action (and at that point, it begins to dip into other rules such as disrespecting the staff).

That was actually still part of a response to my quote; he isn't saying rules are currently enforced with an iron fist.

I think the point being made on both sides is that there is some reform that needs to take place regarding the rules as they currently stand.

Moderators should strive for treating all members equally: this is the point of the topic, and nobody would refute it. Additionally, it has been brought up that we need rule reform, which everyone also seems to agree with.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2012, 1:35 pm by Roy.

The "unfounded rhetoric" is that he was insinuating it is.
"[subject] does not have to be [object]"
It = [subject] = the current state of things
[object] = state of enforcing everything with an iron fist
Statements of this form incorrectly imply that the current state is the state mentioned in the object. The logical implication is false, but the rhetorical insinuation is valid because of our familiarity with statements of the form "It doesn't have to be this way!" Natural language does not always conform to the laws of logic, illustrated by the following example: You are gay. One interpretation is that I am insulting your sexuality; another interpretation is that I think you're a happy person. The "happy person" interpretation is almost entirely invalid because of the antiquated nature of that particular meaning of the word "gay", except when taken in context that supports it, like a song from the 1950's. In a similar case here, Azrael has not given himself the benefit of the doubt by arguing within the context of a logical framework, and whether he meant to or not he has insinuated (I specifically don't say implied because the insinuation is not a logical implication) that the staff currently rules with an iron fist.

And I'm disputing this. I think the only problem here is that staxx and Azrael are making a bigger case out of this than it really is, the rules are fine. Maybe they have been treated unfairly; if so its not because of the rules, its because moderators are human and therefore inherently make mistakes. Mistakes which I believe are entirely unavoidable, and ones which reforming the rules simply won't do anything about. Is it fair to be the victim of a moderator's mistake? No, but you can just PM the guy and say hey, "I think this was a mistake" and get it sorted out. If they won't sort it out with you, you can go to a global, or devlin, and work it out. I think reforming the rules because of these kinds of mistakes will ultimately make things worse here at SEN, not better, and I wish to avoid that. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you view this conversation in the light of 2-3 years instead of 2-3 weeks, I think it makes a lot more sense.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2012, 8:59 pm by Vrael.

I think Vrael's response is a good indicator of what is wrong with the current rules, and the way they are handled. He has responded in a way that is clearly unacceptable for this forum, never mind this site, especially for being a Veteran and previous staff member. However, the moderator who handled the report decided to overlook that, most likely because of his personal feelings toward both Vrael and me, and how he feels about the message we are each conveying. I say "most likely" because there are few other reasons which would explain how a moderator might have deemed his post completely acceptable.

The difference is, I'm choosing to convey my point in a calm, respectful, level-headed way. Even now, with a member of staff having sanctioned Vrael's post, if I reply to him in the same way I will certainly be moderated. They would likely moderate both Vrael's and my post, to say it is "fair", however I don't see how it can be called "fair" to allow one member to belittle and demean another in an official site thread without so much as an edit or PM to them, while punishing other members who engage in the same activity, even in response.

I would have rather this not become the equivalent of bickering. It would be nice if (at least in the official site forum) we could have a certain level of respect for other members and their ideas, and be able to bring our own ideas forward as well, to allow everyone to speak their mind. I would have preferred having a discussion with adults, rather than an argument with children. Apparently some members of staff, both current and previous ones, have a different idea about the way the dialogue in these threads should transpire.

That being the case, I will break down Vrael's post the way he did mine, but I won't be using any bombastic, offensive, inflammatory, or otherwise loaded language.


This string of negative, disrespectful adjectives doesn't actually serve to discredit my post at all. It is literally unfounded rhetoric. The only person this kind of language reflects badly on is you.


No, it isn't. If you want to address my post, then address things I actually said. No one appreciates these strawman arguments.


No, I'm not. Again, if you want to address my post, then address things I actually said.


Again, comments like this are unnecessary and unhelpful to absolutely everyone.


As Roy already tried to explain to you in his previous post, and I see you've ignored or misunderstood his reply to try to continue this point, I will explain it as well.

You specifically took part of one of my sentences, removing it from the relevant context. I never suggested that every rule is enforced with an iron fist, in fact, my statement indicated the opposite of that.

Roy suggested that we could be enforcing every rule with an iron first, and I said that didn't need to be the only alternative.

Again, if you want to address my post, then address things I actually said.


This doesn't contribute to anything.


Stating that the collective "you" of people who "have been here at SEN for years and remember jerks like Devilesk" all agree with your assessment that my post is whining is a pretty deceptive, and factually incorrect, thing to say.

I'm part of that collective "you", Moose is part of that collective "you", pretty much everyone who sees a problem with the current state of things is part of that collective "you".

If you do not have enough confidence to state your opinions as your own, then perhaps you should reconsider stating them at all, especially when said opinion is nonconstructive, inflammatory criticism directed at another member.

As for your example, Devilesk isn't here. Treating the remaining 20 active members like they are Devilesk is nonsensical and will obviously generate resentment among them.

The rules are outdated and are no longer applicable to the current state of the community.

"all I see is x so therefore based on my (probably extremely limited) viewpoint you are incorrect"


This in particular is an inane statement.

German citizen: "Censorship in Germany is oppressive! We want more freedom of speech!"
Holocaust survivor: "Those of us who have been here in Germany for years and remember jerks like Adolf Hitler see your problem as little more than whining."


Applying your 'humans make human mistakes' logic to your next statement contradicts it.


You insinuate that a system of human beings will never all make the same human mistake, assuming it is indeed a mistake. Not only is this inherently flawed reasoning (I couldn't ever go against this statement with an example because it might be all of the moderators making the human mistake or it might be me making the human mistake), it's also based purely on probability (going to one moderator with no success means you should try with more than one moderator). There is no guarantee that:

a.) Your issue will be sorted out in a way satisfactory to all parties involved, just because you forward the issue at hand to more than one member of the administration.
b.) You're correct and not making a human mistake by feeling that your issue was caused by other human mistakes.

From what I can understand based on what you wrote above, you're essentially stating that 'it's someone's fault' and the best way to right the wrong (assuming their even is a wrong, which is again, flimsy based on your logic) is to tell other people that 'it's someone's fault' and hope they agree with you. Maybe giving the rules an overhaul isn't the answer, but your contention here doesn't help anything, either; it just provides a way to redirect blame infinitely between the administration and the member.

If I missed something, and I likely did, explain.


Why do you think that? We might all be making human mistakes when we don't agree with you or don't understand your reasoning. Please enlighten us.

I have dealt with complaints similar to the current situation before, having once been a moderator myself.

Regarding the rest of your post, Pr0nogo, I haven't made any kind of logical arguments, merely conclusions I believe to be true based on my prior experience here at SEN. The reasoning is not logical, you can not formally deduce the statements I have made from some axioms, and I didn't claim that you could. Take what I have said on whatever merits you find (or don't find) and decide for yourself, with your own experience, whether or not anything I have said rings true.

Perhaps the meaning of my post had become diluted, what I disagreed with was the notion that the moderation team is or was acting in a way that was intentionally biased against Azrael. I believe he was overreacting and that there's no need to revise the rules. The caveat to this is that the moderation team is human, it is possible they will make mistakes, but I believe that a "perfect" moderation system is impossible to attain and the current state is probably about as good as its going to get. Maybe there is some legitimacy to staxx's and Azrael's problems, but I hardly see how it calls for rewriting the rules. These kinds of problems can easily be solved by PMing the moderator you have the problem with, usually, and if not go to a global mod, and if that doesn't work go to Devlin. If Devlin disagrees with you, then too bad. You're shit out of luck.

This is in essence true. However, I was not content to let Azrael's message of the staff acting in accordance with:
sit in the thread without response. So I responded.

Fair enough, though I'd still like to see a system that's fair and balanced (esp. relative to what we have now) despite it being up to human error in the end.

What system do you suggest then Prongo?

I honestly don't know. I'm going to have to play the "too busy to write up 10 pages" card, because I am. I'm not active enough on here anymore to care what happens to the site, honestly. I visited SEN after five days of a temporary ban that I didn't learn about until that point in time. I just don't sign on frequently enough to feel confident in suggesting anything - my understanding of the site and how to improve it are both extremely limited.

I don't feel like unlimiting them, either. I just don't care; the only reason I responded to Vrael was because I had thought his post was staggeringly laughable, when in reality I just hadn't understood the meaning behind it.

Some of the stuff he posts is still pretty silly, though.

Why are you people complaining if you have nothing to suggest? It isn't just a waste of time, it is completely counter productive. Nothing gets done if all people do is whine. Frankly I think all posts should be deleted from this thread if they have nothing relevant or new to say or if the authors have no suggestions on how to fix the problem.

When people "whine" (or, if they do what is actually happening, which is point out flaws in the system), it establishes the premise that there is something wrong. Whether that something is the system or the members is up in the air, but I personally lean towards the system.

No one's disagreeing with you that there is a problem. I'm not agreeing with you either. Probably when Moose posted the first "Let's talk, SEN" topic. That was for whining. That was for listening and trying to figure out what people wanted...the purpose of whining has long since outlived it's purpose. Now you're just contributing to the problem.

I agree that perhaps some rules should be modified to be more clear, but we do get a lot of so-called "whining" behind the scenes when people feel like they were unjustly moderated (which is essentially what Vrael was pointing out). Most of the time members assume there's some grudge or general bias against them and that's the real reason for being moderated. I don't think I've ever seen that be the case, though.

People are just really self-absorbed, and they can't imagine a punishment that doesn't involve their personality and mentality, as opposed to their actions.

I don't think the site is busy enough these days for moderation issues to be big problems.

The thing is, you'll always get people who dislike authority or being told what to do, no matter how just those in authority are. I think as far back as 2006 or further, it has been rare for moderators here to behave unfairly. They've by and large based moderation decisions on fair interpretation of the rules, and not personal likes or dislikes. Even so, people will still complain.

The rules were more clearly-structured and codified in the past but they have been replaced with a simpler "common-sense" set of rules (i.e. there are some basic guiding principles which people are expected to abide by). Would people rather have a book of rules or a few principles which are nevertheless open to a degree of interpretation?

There is a large amount of personal bias and favouritism that is part of the human condition and cannot be eliminated, unfortunately, so this statement is bullshit. People react differently to the same crime depending on who did it in the same way that people would react differently to the same joke depending on who told it.

We try to be objective, I think is Will's point. Almost everything that isn't a clear-cut violation of the rules is informally peer-reviewed in the Staff forum, even if some action had already taken place.

If you make it your mission to be flagrantly and equally disliked by all members of the staff, then yes, there may be some injustice heading your way for the reason you mentioned; fortunately, though, that isn't the case for any member of our community.

I cannot stress this one enough. We discuss almost everything in the Staff forum as I've always tried to promote the ideal that varying opinions and group discussions among the staff would lead to better decision making and generally avoid bias. The incidents eluded to earlier in this thread were even discussed extensively, and even though select members felt they were moderated with bias, our staff as a whole felt otherwise. It is also important to note that we do discuss things even after action has taken place because there have been rare occurrences where actions have been reversed. I'm sorry if anyone feels that there is personal bias against them, but unless he or she has managed to piss off everyone in the staff, there shouldn't be any fear of bias when everyone on the staff has a say in what happens.