Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2006-09-27 at 19:52:29
Alright, I've read all 4 pages of replies, mostly giving emphasis to Admins and Staff members' responses.
First, I didn't log on for a few days because I was expecting quite a large and disturbing impact from the post, most flames and rants, but now I see the message went clear.
A few replies before I begin.
1) I didn't write that post as a solution handbook, just to let you guys know that changes need to occur. Even if my post was a pretty hard bash on the head.
2) Concerning having no raw evidence of LW's discussion. Firstly, I'd say that discussing it in Op uUu is pretty much out of the question. From my experience, you need copies of that for future reference and here you ensure that everyone involved has a say. I'd agree with Moose's inmediate reaction at about 50%. But I would've prefered "Freezing" the account until the matter was discussed. By Freezing the account, the person does not lose his staff priviledges, but they cannot be used for a set amount of time.
3) I am not here to make descisions for you guys, I'll just guide you, help you, but I'll be against voting as a Staff member as such. I got voice, but not vote.
Now back to business.
We know that SEN's community has grown by a lot since the basis of our policies were written, but quite obviously they are no longer as effective as we want them to be.
First, we need to set a guideline for the things that we want to do, my suggestion would be the following:
I. Rules and Policy
1) Have the Staff Forum review each and every rule and policy. Try to make changes, remove or add anything new. I know that this is encouraged, but from personal experience, hardly any of us got involved in there.
2) Get the members to do the same thing. But do not intervene. We want to know what they want and feel what is best. After all, we are here to serve them.
3) Get the ideas that the Staff and Members have gotten established and compare them, analyze them and look for similarities/differences. If there's much agreement, then we are on a very good start, since we can conclude that we are on same terms. If there are many differences then our old "Staff knows what members want/need" has failed.
4) Set up a massive poll on changes/additions/removals. Depending on results, changes will accordingly be done.
II. What do we want to provide?
1) Establish amongst the Staff what do you want the site to provide. Shall it be a "We have everything site", "We are here to help", "We are a quality source for mapmaking", "Hybrid source/help", etc...
2) Ask what the members want on the subject.
3) Accordingly make the changes, or at least announcing them for discussion.
III. Moderation
1) Should moderation be done by the book, or openly based on the book?
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
3) Get rid of the Warn Level system. The only reason we use it is because it came with Invision. The Admin member notes are a great tool in which it lets us be more detailed, but dates and specific offense. We will need a way to automatically track these though.
IV. Other
1) Let the people know what's happening, besides paying for the site, it is their site afterall.
2) Get things rolling. I hardly see any "decent" forum activity and mapmaking has been going down. We need to find a way to fix this.
Feel free to discuss to add/modify/remove anything at anywhere on the site.
First, I didn't log on for a few days because I was expecting quite a large and disturbing impact from the post, most flames and rants, but now I see the message went clear.
A few replies before I begin.
1) I didn't write that post as a solution handbook, just to let you guys know that changes need to occur. Even if my post was a pretty hard bash on the head.
2) Concerning having no raw evidence of LW's discussion. Firstly, I'd say that discussing it in Op uUu is pretty much out of the question. From my experience, you need copies of that for future reference and here you ensure that everyone involved has a say. I'd agree with Moose's inmediate reaction at about 50%. But I would've prefered "Freezing" the account until the matter was discussed. By Freezing the account, the person does not lose his staff priviledges, but they cannot be used for a set amount of time.
3) I am not here to make descisions for you guys, I'll just guide you, help you, but I'll be against voting as a Staff member as such. I got voice, but not vote.
Now back to business.
We know that SEN's community has grown by a lot since the basis of our policies were written, but quite obviously they are no longer as effective as we want them to be.
First, we need to set a guideline for the things that we want to do, my suggestion would be the following:
I. Rules and Policy
1) Have the Staff Forum review each and every rule and policy. Try to make changes, remove or add anything new. I know that this is encouraged, but from personal experience, hardly any of us got involved in there.
2) Get the members to do the same thing. But do not intervene. We want to know what they want and feel what is best. After all, we are here to serve them.
3) Get the ideas that the Staff and Members have gotten established and compare them, analyze them and look for similarities/differences. If there's much agreement, then we are on a very good start, since we can conclude that we are on same terms. If there are many differences then our old "Staff knows what members want/need" has failed.
4) Set up a massive poll on changes/additions/removals. Depending on results, changes will accordingly be done.
II. What do we want to provide?
1) Establish amongst the Staff what do you want the site to provide. Shall it be a "We have everything site", "We are here to help", "We are a quality source for mapmaking", "Hybrid source/help", etc...
2) Ask what the members want on the subject.
3) Accordingly make the changes, or at least announcing them for discussion.
III. Moderation
1) Should moderation be done by the book, or openly based on the book?
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
3) Get rid of the Warn Level system. The only reason we use it is because it came with Invision. The Admin member notes are a great tool in which it lets us be more detailed, but dates and specific offense. We will need a way to automatically track these though.
IV. Other
1) Let the people know what's happening, besides paying for the site, it is their site afterall.
2) Get things rolling. I hardly see any "decent" forum activity and mapmaking has been going down. We need to find a way to fix this.
Feel free to discuss to add/modify/remove anything at anywhere on the site.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-09-27 at 20:59:44
LegacyWeapon erred against the core soul and policy of this site, hence he was fired. There is no complexity in that; it was a simple decision.
I. Rules and Policy
1) Have the Staff Forum review each and every rule and policy. Try to make changes, remove or add anything new. I know that this is encouraged, but from personal experience, hardly any of us got involved in there.
The Staff whose opinions are valued usually get say in policy, and if anything crops up that they don't like, nothing is stopping them from objecting.
2) Get the members to do the same thing. But do not intervene. We want to know what they want and feel what is best. After all, we are here to serve them.
No[sup]1[/sup].
3) Get the ideas that the Staff and Members have gotten established and compare them, analyze them and look for similarities/differences. If there's much agreement, then we are on a very good start, since we can conclude that we are on same terms. If there are many differences then our old "Staff knows what members want/need" has failed.
No[sup]1[/sup].
4) Set up a massive poll on changes/additions/removals. Depending on results, changes will accordingly be done.
No[sup]1[/sup].
II. What do we want to provide?
1) Establish amongst the Staff what do you want the site to provide. Shall it be a "We have everything site", "We are here to help", "We are a quality source for mapmaking", "Hybrid source/help", etc...
Huh? SEN does everything we can that is morally right and mostly legal.
2) Ask what the members want on the subject.
No[sup]1[/sup].
3) Accordingly make the changes, or at least announcing them for discussion.
Changes get made. Discussion; see footnote 1.
III. Moderation
1) Should moderation be done by the book, or openly based on the book?
Openly based on the book. Moderators are people, not robots.
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
It is obviously helpful to contact the member, but the is no reason the member gets any input on their punishment. Most punishments have nothing to do with something as simple or benign as a misunderstanding. Hard as it is to believe, new members who really don't know the rules get off easy. Really easy.
3) Get rid of the Warn Level system. The only reason we use it is because it came with Invision. The Admin member notes are a great tool in which it lets us be more detailed, but dates and specific offense. We will need a way to automatically track these though.
Absolutley not. The Warn system is a good ticker for keeping track of offenses, especially for the member, and the Admin notes are the biggest pain in the ass ever.
IV. Other
1) Let the people know what's happening, besides paying for the site, it is their site afterall.
Been to the News forum recently? Ever?
2) Get things rolling. I hardly see any "decent" forum activity and mapmaking has been going down. We need to find a way to fix this.
Continuing down the path we have been sliding along for years won't help.
[sup]1[/sup]The member base at SEN is far too immature, prone to flame, and in general a mass of idiots to confront about any policy decisions. We have never been a democracy, and leaving policy to the uneducated, immature, and squabbling masses will do a world of hurt.
I. Rules and Policy
1) Have the Staff Forum review each and every rule and policy. Try to make changes, remove or add anything new. I know that this is encouraged, but from personal experience, hardly any of us got involved in there.
The Staff whose opinions are valued usually get say in policy, and if anything crops up that they don't like, nothing is stopping them from objecting.
2) Get the members to do the same thing. But do not intervene. We want to know what they want and feel what is best. After all, we are here to serve them.
No[sup]1[/sup].
3) Get the ideas that the Staff and Members have gotten established and compare them, analyze them and look for similarities/differences. If there's much agreement, then we are on a very good start, since we can conclude that we are on same terms. If there are many differences then our old "Staff knows what members want/need" has failed.
No[sup]1[/sup].
4) Set up a massive poll on changes/additions/removals. Depending on results, changes will accordingly be done.
No[sup]1[/sup].
II. What do we want to provide?
1) Establish amongst the Staff what do you want the site to provide. Shall it be a "We have everything site", "We are here to help", "We are a quality source for mapmaking", "Hybrid source/help", etc...
Huh? SEN does everything we can that is morally right and mostly legal.
2) Ask what the members want on the subject.
No[sup]1[/sup].
3) Accordingly make the changes, or at least announcing them for discussion.
Changes get made. Discussion; see footnote 1.
III. Moderation
1) Should moderation be done by the book, or openly based on the book?
Openly based on the book. Moderators are people, not robots.
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
It is obviously helpful to contact the member, but the is no reason the member gets any input on their punishment. Most punishments have nothing to do with something as simple or benign as a misunderstanding. Hard as it is to believe, new members who really don't know the rules get off easy. Really easy.
3) Get rid of the Warn Level system. The only reason we use it is because it came with Invision. The Admin member notes are a great tool in which it lets us be more detailed, but dates and specific offense. We will need a way to automatically track these though.
Absolutley not. The Warn system is a good ticker for keeping track of offenses, especially for the member, and the Admin notes are the biggest pain in the ass ever.
IV. Other
1) Let the people know what's happening, besides paying for the site, it is their site afterall.
Been to the News forum recently? Ever?
2) Get things rolling. I hardly see any "decent" forum activity and mapmaking has been going down. We need to find a way to fix this.
Continuing down the path we have been sliding along for years won't help.
[sup]1[/sup]The member base at SEN is far too immature, prone to flame, and in general a mass of idiots to confront about any policy decisions. We have never been a democracy, and leaving policy to the uneducated, immature, and squabbling masses will do a world of hurt.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-09-27 at 21:05:22
QUOTE(BeeR_KeG @ Sep 27 2006, 06:52 PM)
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
[right][snapback]568947[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]568947[/snapback][/right]
I do this. It leads to arguments. I am tired of these arguments.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kenoli on 2006-09-27 at 21:37:15
QUOTE(BeeR_KeG)
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
It seems that the rules are unimportant to some members. They know that they aren't supposed to spam or flame, it's a rule on every forum, but they do it anyway.There's no point in talking to them about it because they just defend themselves. They don't want to learn, they want to be un-warned.
I have no idea why people are like this.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2006-09-27 at 22:25:59
QUOTE(Kenoli @ Sep 27 2006, 08:36 PM)
QUOTE(BeeR_KeG)
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
It seems that the rules are unimportant to some members. They know that they aren't supposed to spam or flame, it's a rule on every forum, but they do it anyway.There's no point in talking to them about it because they just defend themselves. They don't want to learn, they want to be un-warned.
I have no idea why people are like this.
[right][snapback]569003[/snapback][/right]
I have to agree with Kenoli and Syphon here. I've warned about 6 or 8 people since becoming a mod about 2 weeks ago, and the only responses I get (if I do get one) are either: "I'm sorry, won't happen again." or "OMFG! UR a stupd d***! I'm gonna tel teh admins on u! Ur guna loose ur mod powers! Undo my warn!!!" In both cases, they aren't open to discussion and I don't feel obligated to try and open up one with them anyways.
Now about to the rest...
QUOTE
1) I didn't write that post as a solution handbook, just to let you guys know that changes need to occur. Even if my post was a pretty hard bash on the head.
You opened up discussion, and that's good.
QUOTE
2) Concerning having no raw evidence of LW's discussion. Firstly, I'd say that discussing it in Op uUu is pretty much out of the question. From my experience, you need copies of that for future reference and here you ensure that everyone involved has a say. I'd agree with Moose's inmediate reaction at about 50%. But I would've prefered "Freezing" the account until the matter was discussed. By Freezing the account, the person does not lose his staff priviledges, but they cannot be used for a set amount of time.
I don't know enough about these so called discussions. But I do agree with Moose's firing of LW in that instance. He deliberately used the members here as a testing ground against their knowledge and openly admitted to spearheading a movement that went against SEN's policy. Of course, even if the policy changes, I don't know what that will mean for LW here.
QUOTE
3) I am not here to make descisions for you guys, I'll just guide you, help you, but I'll be against voting as a Staff member as such. I got voice, but not vote.
Keep us honest!
QUOTE
1) Have the Staff Forum review each and every rule and policy. Try to make changes, remove or add anything new. I know that this is encouraged, but from personal experience, hardly any of us got involved in there.
Well, I usually agree with the established rules, and if I do think of something that might need work, someone else has already beaten me to bringing it up. But if someone wanted MY input about each and every rule, I'd be happy to give it.
QUOTE
2) Get the members to do the same thing. But do not intervene. We want to know what they want and feel what is best. After all, we are here to serve them.
I agree that we should at least give them a chance to speak. I do agree with DTBK on the grounds that most of the members are immature (and some are craving a "rebellion" of sorts, cuz of their pent up jizz), we should at least be willing to listen, but we are not obligated to follow all of their suggestions. If anything, it'll give them more room to legally vent their frustration.
QUOTE
3) Get the ideas that the Staff and Members have gotten established and compare them, analyze them and look for similarities/differences. If there's much agreement, then we are on a very good start, since we can conclude that we are on same terms. If there are many differences then our old "Staff knows what members want/need" has failed.
Any reasonably intelligent member will arrive to many of the same conclusions that the staff would, so if we did do this, I wouldn't be worried.
QUOTE
4) Set up a massive poll on changes/additions/removals. Depending on results, changes will accordingly be done.
Only for the reasonable suggestions.
QUOTE
1) Establish amongst the Staff what do you want the site to provide. Shall it be a "We have everything site", "We are here to help", "We are a quality source for mapmaking", "Hybrid source/help", etc...
2) Ask what the members want on the subject.
3) Accordingly make the changes, or at least announcing them for discussion.
2) Ask what the members want on the subject.
3) Accordingly make the changes, or at least announcing them for discussion.
I think my responses to the first batch pretty much summarize what I think of this.
QUOTE
1) Should moderation be done by the book, or openly based on the book?
There needs to be a solid backbone of rules to refer to, and I think the staff is already using its best judgement when it comes down to warning members.
QUOTE
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
Refer to the first paragraph of my post.
QUOTE
3) Get rid of the Warn Level system. The only reason we use it is because it came with Invision. The Admin member notes are a great tool in which it lets us be more detailed, but dates and specific offense. We will need a way to automatically track these though.
Personally, I have no problem with the warn system. It's proven very useful and efficient. I don't know enough about admin member notes to give feedback on that.
QUOTE
1) Let the people know what's happening, besides paying for the site, it is their site afterall.
I think this is being done, especially lately. Nearly all of the discussion about the hot topics is done in the main forums and not here at the staff forum. There isn't anything that's happened that they don't know about.
QUOTE
2) Get things rolling. I hardly see any "decent" forum activity and mapmaking has been going down. We need to find a way to fix this.
More map contests couldn't hurt.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-09-27 at 22:29:44
QUOTE(Kenoli @ Sep 27 2006, 08:36 PM)
QUOTE(BeeR_KeG)
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
It seems that the rules are unimportant to some members. They know that they aren't supposed to spam or flame, it's a rule on every forum, but they do it anyway.There's no point in talking to them about it because they just defend themselves. They don't want to learn, they want to be un-warned.
I have no idea why people are like this.
[right][snapback]569003[/snapback][/right]
They're being reactionary instead of proactionary (if that's even a word
). Instead of making the move on their own, they want us to give in to them instead of them giving in to us.This is where classical psychology comes in. Just as you give members punishments for doing the wrong thing, there should also be a way to give rewards for doing the right thing, or at least for atoning for what they did wrong. It won't stop people putting friction against the system, but it will diswade them from continuing to do so if they're given a positive outlet instead.
It's just like how you train a dog, or a child, really. Scarcely any different over the internet as it is in real life.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-09-27 at 22:55:10
QUOTE(Tuxedo Templar @ Sep 27 2006, 09:29 PM)
It's just like how you train a dog, or a child, really. Scarcely any different over the internet as it is in real life.
[right][snapback]569032[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]569032[/snapback][/right]
Most people are set in there ways by the time they find the internet. Retrying a developed teenager is harder than teaching a child.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-09-27 at 23:03:50
Well it's not so much that they're set in their ways as you're just not in a good position to directly reach them. But wherever there's a positive path available for them, even if it has a few requirements, chances are they'll eventually yield to those requirements to stay on that path instead of try to force their way. And if they do try to force their way, give them additional positives for stopping being forceful in addition to assert negatives for not stopping. It'll take some work, but you'll gradually train them to follow your intended direction and do so of their own will instead of through force (which they'll just find a way to circumvent... like joining maplantis or something).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-09-28 at 00:45:37
QUOTE
I agree that we should at least give them a chance to speak. I do agree with DTBK on the grounds that most of the members are immature (and some are craving a "rebellion" of sorts, cuz of their pent up jizz), we should at least be willing to listen, but we are not obligated to follow all of their suggestions. If anything, it'll give them more room to legally vent their frustration.
Naturally. If a member PM-ed me a good suggestion, I would certainly consider it, and probably support it.
I simply say that if the Staff has new policy, any "voting" by members would be a very bad idea indeed. Comment is allowed, but if the member start feeling like that have democratic power, you'll get bloodthirsty politicans running around, buying votes and flaming people into submission.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2006-09-28 at 05:17:53
QUOTE
3) Get rid of the Warn Level system. The only reason we use it is because it came with Invision. The Admin member notes are a great tool in which it lets us be more detailed, but dates and specific offense. We will need a way to automatically track these though.
Oh I plan on it...
Just like getting rid of member groups like "regular" and "elite" will kill any reason to spam... except maybe minerals. And maybe that will go as well.
It sounds, though, like you expect us to have all the time in the world to work with people on an individual basis. Taking Kellimus for example... he had so much time... ran out so many levels of patience with everyone here... I unbanned him once he got banned and tried working with him... he just couldn't stop being immature when posting.
Addition:
I wanna worry less about certain problem individuals and instead focus on what the people need who actually have reasons to be here (mapping, etc). If someone who isn't mapping, learning, sharing, etc just wants to stand around and flame other people, I don't really care about their end as much as I care about the person who is seeking information and not getting it.
So let's start by making the community better for the people who deserve it most... and maybe our efforts will start to trickle their way down to people who, put simply, have issues.
As far as these people with issues... I don't know. Let's not "hate" them.
SENv5... A new tutorial system... The review / dldb submission system... An easier life for staff... and hopefully little fun twirks that will give members something to do other than cause problems.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-09-28 at 10:38:18
Our current warn system is really good. It automatically tracks your offences, give you second chances and stuff, maybe we sould have a bit more detailed log system.
Otherwise, if you would try to start some "The Admin member notes tool", you will end up with somwthing very similar to this.
Otherwise, if you would try to start some "The Admin member notes tool", you will end up with somwthing very similar to this.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2006-09-28 at 12:46:00
No... if a mod deletes a topic, you enter your reason...
It gets "deleted", a note is put into the member's logs that states:
"DEAD deleted topic 'I need a CD KEY'." Fined 200 minerals.
The topic will still be viewable, although "deleted", for any one with proper permissions to see.
It gets "deleted", a note is put into the member's logs that states:
"DEAD deleted topic 'I need a CD KEY'." Fined 200 minerals.
The topic will still be viewable, although "deleted", for any one with proper permissions to see.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-28 at 14:38:34
Once the v5 stuff is done... I'm going to have the massive "Reviving SEN" topic. You'll like it. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2006-09-28 at 14:51:51
moosey, aim?
ADDITION:
i just like talking to you... it turns me on
ADDITION:
hurry up and post
ADDITION:
i just like talking to you... it turns me on
ADDITION:
hurry up and post
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-28 at 14:55:22
QUOTE(BeeR_KeG @ Sep 27 2006, 07:52 PM)
1) I didn't write that post as a solution handbook, just to let you guys know that changes need to occur. Even if my post was a pretty hard bash on the head.
The wake up calls were before your post, trust me.
QUOTE
2) Concerning having no raw evidence of LW's discussion. Firstly, I'd say that discussing it in Op uUu is pretty much out of the question. From my experience, you need copies of that for future reference and here you ensure that everyone involved has a say. I'd agree with Moose's inmediate reaction at about 50%. But I would've prefered "Freezing" the account until the matter was discussed. By Freezing the account, the person does not lose his staff priviledges, but they cannot be used for a set amount of time.
Did you read the entire OSMAP topic? I slept on the issue, damnit. I have AIM logs too.
QUOTE
1) Have the Staff Forum review each and every rule and policy. Try to make changes, remove or add anything new. I know that this is encouraged, but from personal experience, hardly any of us got involved in there.
Anyone is free to comment (even non-staff, if they're going to be decent and intelligent about it), but provoking a discussion couldn't hurt. I've asked CaptainWill to take a look at the rules and give me some help.
QUOTE
4) Set up a massive poll on changes/additions/removals. Depending on results, changes will accordingly be done.
Some things should have massive polls... other things shouldn't.
QUOTE
1) Establish amongst the Staff what do you want the site to provide. Shall it be a "We have everything site", "We are here to help", "We are a quality source for mapmaking", "Hybrid source/help", etc...
StarCraft creation... or StarCraft in general.
QUOTE
1) Should moderation be done by the book, or openly based on the book?
Openly based on the book. I didn't write out all the rules to explain everything... just for more specifics to be interpreted.
QUOTE
2) Punishments should be discussed, on what the punishment is, and how it will be done. I highly suggest that moderators get in contanct with the punished party, make a more personal PM instead of saying: "Warned for flame, post of link here". Try to help them out, and possibly explain the rules a bit more. Making the community feel a bit friendlier will go great leaps.
I used to do this. I had a nice PM I'd copy and paste every so often, but I've been too busy and/or lazy lately (how those go together, I don't know).
QUOTE
3) Get rid of the Warn Level system. The only reason we use it is because it came with Invision. The Admin member notes are a great tool in which it lets us be more detailed, but dates and specific offense. We will need a way to automatically track these though.
I'm pretty sure Yoshi installed it. It works fine if moderators use it properly (which is required now).
QUOTE
1) Let the people know what's happening, besides paying for the site, it is their site afterall.
No it isn't.
QUOTE
2) Get things rolling. I hardly see any "decent" forum activity and mapmaking has been going down. We need to find a way to fix this.
When you've got the mind control serum ready...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-09-28 at 18:35:55
QUOTE(IsolatedPurity @ Sep 28 2006, 09:45 AM)
No... if a mod deletes a topic, you enter your reason...
It gets "deleted", a note is put into the member's logs that states:
"DEAD deleted topic 'I need a CD KEY'." Fined 200 minerals.
The topic will still be viewable, although "deleted", for any one with proper permissions to see.
[right][snapback]569194[/snapback][/right]
It gets "deleted", a note is put into the member's logs that states:
"DEAD deleted topic 'I need a CD KEY'." Fined 200 minerals.
The topic will still be viewable, although "deleted", for any one with proper permissions to see.
[right][snapback]569194[/snapback][/right]
As long as the logs are as clear and simple as the warn system here. I like it and find it a very good way of keeping track of number and severity of offenses. It should not be abandoned lightly.
QUOTE
Just like getting rid of member groups like "regular" and "elite" will kill any reason to spam... except maybe minerals. And maybe that will go as well.
Regulars and Elites should not be gotten rid of. Not saying that you should still use purely posts (hey, I'm pulling for my reputation system), but we definitely need indications of how venerable members are.
This lack of the established structure of v4 is one of the reasons I'm hesitant to want to move to v5.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-09-28 at 18:37:47
QUOTE(IsolatedPurity @ Sep 28 2006, 01:51 PM)
moosey, aim?
ADDITION:
i just like talking to you... it turns me on
ADDITION:
hurry up and post
[right][snapback]569206[/snapback][/right]
ADDITION:
i just like talking to you... it turns me on
ADDITION:
hurry up and post
[right][snapback]569206[/snapback][/right]
Moosey, MSN?
I need you to complete my collection.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2006-09-28 at 19:04:53
HmmMMmMMmMm... regulars = what? 300 posts in certain forums with a certain length? It's too shady as is. You know what members are "venerable" because of the reputation they have with you personally (you see them post, bring up good ideas, help in help forums, etc) and there will still be post/topic counts and etc. Want to judge them on numbers and how worthwhile their posts were? Just look through their last posts.
You know... I plan on having no visible distinction between staff as well. Globals, dldb keepers, tutorial managers, etc... will all be grouped under "Staff". Look at their profile will tell you exactly what they can and can not do. Want to find someone who can accept your map? Go to the staff page and click on the ability to bring up all the members who can do that.
Elite status might be used, but reserved for people who bring content to the site. Tux would be a good example if he wasn't staff. Do a lot of tutorial submitting and editting and are loved for it? *Poof* elite status.
There might be a small group for people who join the site but don't really post and what not. Sort of a pre-member group for those with under 10 posts or something. I doubt it though.
You know... I plan on having no visible distinction between staff as well. Globals, dldb keepers, tutorial managers, etc... will all be grouped under "Staff". Look at their profile will tell you exactly what they can and can not do. Want to find someone who can accept your map? Go to the staff page and click on the ability to bring up all the members who can do that.
Elite status might be used, but reserved for people who bring content to the site. Tux would be a good example if he wasn't staff. Do a lot of tutorial submitting and editting and are loved for it? *Poof* elite status.
There might be a small group for people who join the site but don't really post and what not. Sort of a pre-member group for those with under 10 posts or something. I doubt it though.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-09-28 at 19:16:13
QUOTE
You know what members are "venerable" because of the reputation they have with you personally (you see them post, bring up good ideas, help in help forums, etc) and there will still be post/topic counts and etc.
Not if someone is new.
QUOTE
Want to judge them on numbers and how worthwhile their posts were? Just look through their last posts.
Way, way, WAY too much work for the purpose.
I don't see the point of all this "conformity". Marking members as we do now gives the site a defined heirarchy and a sense of professionality. I still say use my rating system for member>regular>elite.
Most of all, such distinctions should be kept; the easier it is to tell who is who the better. All that need be is that the distinctions are true and hard to cheat (like member>regular>elite).
Let me repost my rating system: most of all I think this should get a trial run regardless to gauge it. All of it should be easily code-able.
SEN age does have something to do with it, you need a name for yourself here to be truly respected; AND it can't be spammed or bought.
Ill change it to 1.4a.
Calculating...:
(f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2]
Where
a - days as a member of SEN
b - post count
c - posts per day
d - member rating from 1 to 10
e - #of members who rated the person
f - admin rating of member starting at 1.000 and bounded from 0.500 to 1.200)
DT_Battlekruser
a = 357
b = 2203
c = 6.2
d = maybe 8?
e = 25
f = perhaps 1.1? You're an admin so you can input your own value.
(1.1 [(1.4(357) + 2203/10 + (8-5)/2 * (3(25)/4)] [(-1/20) (6.2-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.1[(499.8 + 220.3 + 28.125)(1.998)]
1644
DT_Battlekruser (05/16/06)
a = 707
b = 3778
c = 5.4
d = 9
e = 50
f = 1.2
(1.2 [(1.4(707) + 3778/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(50)/4)] [(-1/20) (5.4-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.2[(989.8 + 377.8 + 75)(1.982)]
3431
isolatedpurity
a = 261
b = 672
c = 2.6
d = 9
e = 65
f = 1.2
(1.2 [(1.4(261) + 672/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(65)/4)] [(-1/20) (2.6-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.2[(365.4 + 67.2 + 97.5)(1.422)]
905 - face it IP you're not around as much; and you aren't as active in the forums themselves so your number shouldn't be as high. It represents a cross between you quality as a member, your activity in the forums, and your popularity.
isolatedpurity (05/16/06)
a = 611
b = 873
c = 1.4
d = 9
e = 75
f = 1.2
(1.2 [(1.4(611) + 873/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(75)/4)] [(-1/20) (1.4-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.2[(855.4 + 87.3 + 112.5)(0.942)]
1193 - you just don't post that much
BeeR_KeG
a = 322
b = 2256
c = 7.0
d = 9
e = 45
f = 1.15
(1.15 [(1.4(322) + 2256/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(45)/4)] [(-1/20) (7-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.15[(450.8 + 225.6 + 67.5)(1.95)]
1668
BeeR_KeG (05/16/06)
a = 672
b = 3198
c = 4.8
d = 9
e = 50
f = 1.2
(1.2 [(1.4(672) + 3198/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(50)/4)] [(-1/20) (4.8-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.2[(940.8 + 319.8 + 75)(1.928)]
3090
See, it works over time!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2006-09-28 at 19:27:50
But... was Beer really that active over time? I thought he went away. He's more or less on par with you?
Way, way, way too much work to promote people to elite status invidually...?
But
We are supposed to rate all members from .5 to 1.2?
I can include your rating system as a fun perk... "DTBK says your value is: 3,405!"
I thought he went away. He's more or less on par with you?Way, way, way too much work to promote people to elite status invidually...?
But
QUOTE
f - admin rating of member starting at 1.000 and bounded from 0.500 to 1.200)
We are supposed to rate all members from .5 to 1.2?
I can include your rating system as a fun perk... "DTBK says your value is: 3,405!"
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-09-28 at 22:27:33
QUOTE(IsolatedPurity @ Sep 28 2006, 04:27 PM)
But... was Beer really that active over time? I thought he went away. He's more or less on par with you?
Way, way, way too much work to promote people to elite status invidually...?
But
We are supposed to rate all members from .5 to 1.2?
I can include your rating system as a fun perk... "DTBK says your value is: 3,405!"
[right][snapback]569342[/snapback][/right]
I thought he went away. He's more or less on par with you?Way, way, way too much work to promote people to elite status invidually...?
But
We are supposed to rate all members from .5 to 1.2?
I can include your rating system as a fun perk... "DTBK says your value is: 3,405!"
[right][snapback]569342[/snapback][/right]
Firstly, this was last calculated before BeeR disappeared. Let me re-calculate.
Secondly, the admin rating thing is not a "we go and rate members based on how much we like them". Admin rating would be optionally decreased as a punishment (like fining), and increased only if we really like someone. As to member rating, that is rating each member individually but you don't have to do every one.
If you notice the position of the admin rating, it is a simply and easily set controlling factor on a member - lower the rating of members who are punished, raise it again if they redeem themselves, etc. An ideal member with a clean warn log would sit at a 1.000 admin rating, therefore not affecting his rating output.
If there is another thing I like about my system, it's the implementation of a member rating. It can hold both positive and negative sway, but it is dependent on how many people have voted for you -- very difficult to cheat.
Finally, what I suggest is to start with the system - even on v4 - just to see its outputs so that we can
a) revise or trash it
b) determine promotion numbers
c) implement later
Let me re-calculate for today:
(f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2]
Where
a - days as a member of SEN
b - post count
c - posts per day
d - member rating from 1 to 10
e - #of members who rated the person
f - admin rating of member starting at 1.000 and bounded from 0.500 to 1.200)
DT_Battlekruser
a = 841
b = 4119
c = 4.90
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.2
(1.2 [(1.4(841) + 4119/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (4.90-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.2[(1177.4 + 411.9 + 150)(1.9395)]
4048
IsolatedPurity
a = 745
b = 924
c = 1.2
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.2
(1.2 [(1.4(745) + 924/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (1.2-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.2[(1043 + 92.4 + 150)(0.848)]
1308
BeeR_KeG
a = 806
b = 1008
c = 1.3
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.15
(1.15 [(1.4(806) + 1008/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (1.3-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.15[(1128.4 + 100.8 + 150)(0.8955)]
1420
Note BeeR's post count suffered majorly from the hacker, so this isn't really too precise. If we presume something like his 3250 posts he might have otherwise, we can try:
BeeR_KeG (Revised)
a = 806
b = 3250
c = 4.03
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.15
(1.15 [(1.4(806) + 3250/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (4.03-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
1.15[(1128.4 + 325 + 150)(1.805955)]
3330
He has fallen a bit since before, and the number is what I think it should be. Even if he hasn't been doing anything recently, if you compare the number of his active days to his inactive ones, it is understandable why his rating is sustained at a fairly high number. Note that since he disappeared, he dropped 718 respective to me.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-09-28 at 23:09:46
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Sep 28 2006, 09:27 PM)
(f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2]
Where
a - days as a member of SEN
b - post count
c - posts per day
d - member rating from 1 to 10
e - #of members who rated the person
f - admin rating of member starting at 1.000 and bounded from 0.500 to 1.200)
[right][snapback]569427[/snapback][/right]
I love this everytime you post it.
Syphon
a - 449
b - 6560.4
c - 0.4
d - 10
e - 100
f - 9.7
(9.7 [(1.4(449) + 6560.4/10 + (10-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (.4-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])
(9.7 [96535.5][0.048])
44946.9288?
Internet algebra escapes me.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2006-09-28 at 23:12:14
Your first mistake is that f can't be 9.7...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-09-28 at 23:14:19
f, the admin rating, is BOUNDED between 0.5 and 1.2. In your case, I'd try 1.0 for your impudence 
Not to mention you don't have 6560 posts (it's cumulative posts, not including short ones and Null posts), and [(1.4(449) + 6560.4/10 + (10-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] = 1434.64, not 96535.5.
If we abolished the cumulative post concept, the formula would need a little tweaked to adjust for radically different post amounts.
Do we have an accord though, IP?
Not to mention you don't have 6560 posts (it's cumulative posts, not including short ones and Null posts), and [(1.4(449) + 6560.4/10 + (10-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] = 1434.64, not 96535.5.
If we abolished the cumulative post concept, the formula would need a little tweaked to adjust for radically different post amounts.
Do we have an accord though, IP?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-09-28 at 23:19:26
I'm impudent now, am I?
My cumulative posts are close to 1700, aswell (Freakin' hax.). And you never specified cumulative only.
My cumulative posts are close to 1700, aswell (Freakin' hax.). And you never specified cumulative only.