Rule Clarification

[Lestat]

My invite must be in mail.

All hail the return of ABs!

[Palem]

People complain that mods that don't play are out of touch. People complain about mods playing because they're "capable" of abusing their power for in-game benefits (still haven't heard how).

TLDR: People will always complain, regardless.

Do you guys have any complaints about Proteus and/or Allanon moderating the forums that don't rely on conspiracy theories and "what if"s? Those would be the kinds of things you'd need to bring forward to make a change in mods

[octobrev]

So if we all move to 1:1, we'll all be able to moderate all threads and posts in our moderating area without any accusations of prejudice? Unfortunately, I don't think that'll be accepted so why limit our game when there are no benefits for anyone?

The prejudice will remain forever so I really can't do much to help in that respect. It's the will and way of the people. I'm specifically targeting possible in-game benefits. Maybe with some questions I can develop examples!
- Do the mods have access to the support email or are forum related concerns forwarded to them by the devs?
- Are the mods able to identify people viewing threads when they are not logged in?
- Do the mods have access to user IP addresses or would they be able to associate peoples' alternate accounts with their mains?
- Could being a mod on the forum change how these players are interacted with in-game? Could fear of retaliation, however unfounded it may be, cause them to receive preferential treatment?
- Could being in closer proximity to the devs cause them to gain any sort of privileged information? Are discussions about in-game violations or age changes conducted an entirely separate place?

Do you guys have any complaints about Proteus and/or Allanon moderating the forums that don't rely on conspiracy theories and "what if"s? Those would be the kinds of things you'd need to bring forward to make a change in mods

Nope, none that I can think of. The top is a series of twisted conspiracy theories though (some true, some still waiting to be confessed to) so it wouldn't hurt to be cautious.

[JeffT]

The prejudice will remain forever so I really can't do much to help in that respect. It's the will and way of the people. I'm specifically targeting possible in-game benefits. Maybe with some questions I can develop examples!
- Do the mods have access to the support email or are forum related concerns forwarded to them by the devs?

No. All forum reports are emailed to the appropriate moderators, but the US e-mail is not visible to moderators. Strategy mods don't have the ability to infract, I can't recall if I left it on the UT mods or not.

- Are the mods able to identify people viewing threads when they are not logged in?

No.

- Do the mods have access to user IP addresses or would they be able to associate peoples' alternate accounts with their mains?

No. There are a number of reasons why we wouldn't want to allow this.

- Could being a mod on the forum change how these players are interacted with in-game? Could fear of retaliation, however unfounded it may be, cause them to receive preferential treatment?

Being a mod could also result in negative in-game consequences due to perceived forum discrimination.

- Could being in closer proximity to the devs cause them to gain any sort of privileged information? Are discussions about in-game violations or age changes conducted an entirely separate place?

Discussions occur in a private channel that the mods don't have access to. If mods attempt to use the access as a backchannel, I will remove them same as how I removed folks from the test group for attempting to use it as a private backchannel.

[Pestilence]

No. All forum reports are emailed to the appropriate moderators, but the US e-mail is not visible to moderators. Strategy mods don't have the ability to infract, I can't recall if I left it on the UT mods or not.

No.

No. There are a number of reasons why we wouldn't want to allow this.

Being a mod could also result in negative in-game consequences due to perceived forum discrimination.

Discussions occur in a private channel that the mods don't have access to. If mods attempt to use the access as a backchannel, I will remove them same as how I removed folks from the test group for attempting to use it as a private backchannel.

Thanks, really nothing for anyone to be too worried about then.

[octobrev]

It does seem pretty locked up! I'll keep thinking though...

[Pestilence]

It does seem pretty locked up! I'll keep thinking though...

That's what they want you to think. With all these evil new mods in a few ages the game will be called Absalom.

[Palem]

It has nothing to do with personal feelings. I actually liked Bart for the most part but his permaban was totally justified. He was given countless warnings over multuple ages to stop attacking the devs and attempting to undermine them and he simply refused.

Evading bans has always been against the rules. People that made alt accounts to avoid their bans got the new account banned and their ban was extended.

Communicating in the forums via an actual account vs an alt that they set up is no different and isn't acceptable. That goes for Bart, or Scott, or any other permabanned or temporary banned user

[Sweetiepie]

It has nothing to do with personal feelings. I actually liked Bart for the most part but his permaban was totally justified. He was given countless warnings over multuple ages to stop attacking the devs and attempting to undermine them and he simply refused.

Evading bans has always been against the rules. People that made alt accounts to avoid their bans got the new account banned and their ban was extended.

Communicating in the forums via an actual account vs an alt that they set up is no different and isn't acceptable. That goes for Bart, or Scott, or any other permabanned or temporary banned user

I have no idea whether his ban was justified or not Palem and I don't really care tbh. Alts are clearly going to be banned if they are found, that is normal and makes sense.

I do think his ban has to do with some people's feelings though - there's too much ridiculousness being involved considering the guy hasn't committed murder or posted sex link viruses. He's banned, fine. But you can't wish him into nonexistence and he's clearly still playing the game, like it or not.

See you are already talking about Scott - well I have no idea who Scott is. But maybe I know him, it's not an uncommon name, but I have no idea he's banned, and he says oh wow you still post on that old crappy forum say hi to folks for me next time you're posting. Then someone goes SCOTT WAS MENTIONED - BANHAMMER!!! Maybe someone I talk to, say Freddie was temp banned, how on earth would I know? And over sap he says oh yeah just ask about how XX:XX;s war went, I'm not on my pc. I post and maybe I mention Freddie's name in my post,BANHAMMER!!

You still haven't addressed my other point, which is if a user posts 'Someone wants to say good job XX:XX' are you going to ban them because they MIGHT be referring to Bart? Or Scott? Or any other banned user, permabanned or temporary?

It is absolutely ridiculous, just the height and depth of ridiculousness and you would be far better off not trying to defend the indefensible and trying to drape a fig leaf of sense over it because that just tars you with the same 'has no sense and tunnel vision' brush. It would be frankly slightly less silly to say anyone mentioning Bart's name will be banned, or provide a list of names the mention of which will get anyone banned! (Yes, it would be pretty ridiculous, and the current situation is even sillier which sums it up quite well)

HARD CASES MAKE BAD LAW. It's as simple as that!

[DavidC]

Evading bans is not acceptable, this is not a hard case.
If you are banned from the Forums, there is a reason for it and therefore your comments on the Forums are unwanted.

I'm also somewhat confused about why people think we 'hate' Bart. I don't hate him. He's been banned for good reason, not because of any other reason than the reasons stated very clearly in the thread that outlined what he did and why it was wrong. The policy update to include specific language detailing that posting on behalf of banned users is not allowed was to specify just that, not some backdoor way of keeping out a single user. It was not specifically stated previously and needed to be; there is no undertone or secret meaning for it. The policy is straight-forward and direct (and reasonable!).

[Pillz]

Evading bans is not acceptable, this is not a hard case.
If you are banned from the Forums, there is a reason for it and therefore your comments on the Forums are unwanted.

I'm also somewhat confused about why people think we 'hate' Bart. I don't hate him. He's been banned for good reason, not because of any other reason than the reasons stated very clearly in the thread that outlined what he did and why it was wrong. The policy update to include specific language detailing that posting on behalf of banned users is not allowed was to specify just that, not some backdoor way of keeping out a single user. It was not specifically stated previously and needed to be; there is no undertone or secret meaning for it. The policy is straight-forward and direct (and reasonable!).

There is nothing reasonable about forum Nazis.

[Sweetiepie]

Evading bans is not acceptable, this is not a hard case.
If you are banned from the Forums, there is a reason for it and therefore your comments on the Forums are unwanted.

I'm also somewhat confused about why people think we 'hate' Bart. I don't hate him. He's been banned for good reason, not because of any other reason than the reasons stated very clearly in the thread that outlined what he did and why it was wrong. The policy update to include specific language detailing that posting on behalf of banned users is not allowed was to specify just that, not some backdoor way of keeping out a single user. It was not specifically stated previously and needed to be; there is no undertone or secret meaning for it. The policy is straight-forward and direct (and reasonable!).

Of course cheating is not OK. I can't remember what the fuss was all about now and I can't be bothered to go look it up. However your freakish rush to institute a new rule is ofc aimed at one ex forum user, considering it has never been in existence before. And you have not, I noticed, addressed the points I raised - possibly because you see that there isn't a simple answer, so prefer to ignore them? IMO it's hardly an answer in response to my points to say that your policy is straightforward direct and reasonable.

The only saving grace is that these forums are very nearly dead now anyway so I guess it doesn't really matter what you do.

[DavidC]

If there's nothing productive from your posts, they will be removed; if you continually don't contribute discussion to the topic you will be removed.

There's a sub-forum specifically for spam, if that's what you want to do then do it there.


Discussion of topics by users with active accounts are what the Forums are for. If that is not what is taking place, then it's not acceptable Forum behavior.

[Pillz]

If there's nothing productive from your posts, they will be removed; if you continually don't contribute discussion to the topic you will be removed.

There's a sub-forum specifically for spam, if that's what you want to do then do it there.


Discussion of topics by users with active accounts are what the Forums are for. If that is not what is taking place, then it's not acceptable Forum behavior.

Is that a personal warning, or can we expect a sharp decline in Palem spamming every thread with gifs?

Either way, my post was on topic and an apt response to your outlandish claim that the rule change was reasonable - because nothing you've implemented on the forums as been.

[SnirpsneR]

Bart himself provided more useful posts than any post from palem. Yet he is still a mod.