You know, there's a real problem on the forums.
 

What kind of rule is this? A server manager (that would be Yen) who is looked down upon and frequently ridiculed by nearly all major forumgoers manages in his final days to increase his standing among them simply by getting banned and then committing an act of corruption (the nature of which to this point remains unclear) to the detriment of his server in an act of protest against the "Graal staff". In other words, it does not matter that he was a corrupt manager and seen as a person who frequently used the forums simply to cry for attention - in the end he was able to elevate himself to a more respectable status among major forumgoers simply by "fighting the staff". They don't even care how he fought them, just that he did. Such is the state of the relationship between the major forumgoers and the Graal staff. Of course, everyone knows that major forumgoers have little contact with the vast majority of staff on Graal servers, they care mostly about the forum staff, and so to them "forum staff" and "graal staff" are synonymous. It doesn't matter to them that Yen's Zodiac corruption wasn't directed against a single moderator, in their minds he fought against the forum administration by proxy.

Of course, the forum administration have heard that the major forumgoers hate them before, and, in the instances that they decide to respond rather than delete, they generally bring out one of two defenses, one (used pretty much exclusively by Moon Goddess) is to claim accountability only to Unixmad. A valid claim, but it is suspicious in that Unixmad's rubber-stampery is legendary, she is accountable to him but she would likely keep his approval regardless of how she moderated (barring extreme actions). Another defence, used more often and even by Unixmad himself, is to claim that forum governance is carried out in the interest of the majority of forumgoers, not just the major forumgoers. Despite detractors outnumbering supporters, the fact that the majority of forum users don't care (even though it's because they don't use the forums enough to care) legitimizes present forum policy. What this defence advocates (or would advocate, if anyone actually took it seriously) is in reality an environment of near-zero moderation. If apathy is support, than the best forum policy is one that maximizes apathy. The members who do not care (the majority) do not care because they do not come into contact with forum administration or forum policy (they do not experience moderation). The best way to maximize apathy is therefore to ensure that as few users as possible experience moderation. There is no need for rules (except one rule to ban posts that may expose Graal Online to liability) in the ideal forums advocated for by the reasoning of the administration - they should simply seek to maximize apathy by moderating only when there is an outcry by the memberbase to do so (since feeling that moderators are not moderating where they should moderate is also contrary to apathy) and afterwards let the members get back to not caring.

Of course, that's because the forum administration don't really want to maximize apathy (nor do I), they just noticed that most members didn't post enough to care and used that fact to come up with an "on the fly" justification for the present forum policy (of course, since members who don't post enough to care are unlikely to be affected by most types of realistic forum policy, this reasoning can be used to justify pretty much any kind of forum policy, though of course the one I described above trumps all others in claim to this justification.) Nor are they really trying to moderate in accordance with the principle of "benefiting the majority of users". Anybody who thinks that Sam tried to calculate how much his deletion of Ed's post criticizing EM policy regarding elf spawns on 2K2 would benefit whom and then concluded that it would benefit the "majority" before he deleted it is kidding themselves. Moderators usually just have an intuitive reaction to a post (that it is "bad") and thus delete it, with very little consideration of whether or not it breaks the rules (though they usually do delete posts that do break the rules.) Sometimes they'll put serious consideration into a deletion, but that's because their intuitive reaction is muddled. It's not that they aren't sure whether or not they should delete the post, just that they aren't sure whether or not it's "bad".

Except that all members who read posts have intuitive reactions/opinions/etc about them. Yet the opinions of a moderator are enforced, whereas those of an average member are not. In other words, a moderator's personal opinions on what should be deleted/etc are made more valid simply because they are held by a moderator. This is ridiculous. It is also equally ridiculous to say that a moderator's opinions on what shouldn't be deleted/what shouldn't be a rule are more valid simply because they are a moderator. It doesn't matter that the rule against non-graal-related links is silly, a moderator should enforce it simply because it is a rule. Moderators should enforce the rules, all the rules, and nothing but the rules (by the way, pretending a post breaks rule 3a when it doesn't is not part of enforcing the rules). They can, of course, have opinions on what should and shouldn't be a rule, but those opinions shouldn't be subject to special treatment (i.e. being enforceable) simply because they are held by a moderator.

Of course, ways of addressing problems with the rules should exist, in particular it is important that bans, moderations and the rules be discussable, because the official forums are the only place where the staff get a real chance to defend themselves.

This is a post from Moon Goddess a from a while back in which she attempts to justify outlawing discussions of corruption, etc. Firstly, we can see that this policy is subject to a double standard. Allegations against Yen, for example, can be thrown around fairly freely (remember that according to Moon Goddess these allegations should be disallowed even if they're true.) Beyond that, it completely denies the victim a chance to defend themselves publically whereas it does very little to prevent the accuser from spreading the allegations. The accuser can freely spread them on the client or on other forums and go unopposed (especially on forums where staff are prohibited from joining), whereas the official forums are often the victim's only opportunity to defend themselves. For example, when rumours that I speed hacked began to spread on 2K2 (that is, on the client, where mounting a serious defense is extremely difficult), it was I who chose to bring them onto the forums because I knew that the forums were the best place to publically expose the allegations as ridiculous.

Or you can just keep things the way they are and have the next guy who deletes his server seen as a hero too.

Yeah...even I've chafed against the rules, and I'm the corporate crony...I mean, discussing a thread started in the Main Forums gets bumped down to Future Improvements? Discussions of effective advertising strategy (after Unixmad suggested it) gets deleted for discussing other MMORPGs in the context of how other MMORPGs advertise?

One of two things have to happen.
Unixmad needs to adjudicate all of these appeals, or someone needs to be empowered to do it in his absence. I too am a little weary of the admins pointing to the empty chair and saying "Go ask him if it's okay." Graal's becoming a religion: "Discussion of how The Enemy recruits troops is forbidden, and if you don't like it ask God to intervene."

i agree... Big post though

This thread is proabably gonna get closed or deleted..

You should write an effing book. Well said.

I only read part, I just want to post this before it gets closed.

"Brilliant".
Okay, back to reading it :)

Edit:
Read it.
1). I <3 you Googi ;)
2). Yen was a hero
3). Something needs to be done, because the current moderation and rules are hurting this community as a whole. SInce Graal IS the community, I'd be pretty worried if I was making money off of it.

bah, you know itll happen

Ya know we could always use this forum to make a better relationship between users vs users and users vs mods. Id really like less forum mod interaction (Id like to not notice the mods are around all the time) which is not saying Id break rules and act out right wrong.

Real relationships can only form in a place where communication is not restricted. When you sacrifice freedom, you sacrifice character.

Well if some members wouldn't act like douchebags I bet the restrictions would be limited a lot less.

I suggest the forum rules be changed simply to moderator's discretion.

People watch too many legal dramas and believe they have the ability to target loopholes and stretches to protect themselves so well that they are invulnerable.

However, the forum rules do nothing to state how the execution of these rules will take place. You are not guaranteed safety if you do not violate any of the written rules, because nothing is checking the power of the moderators. That is where yours and Excalibur's confusion comes into play, Googi. By living in a democratic society, you have automatically come to assume that this forum, would then also live by a similar structure when it does not. Power is absolute here, not distributed and limited. They can bend and twist the rules as they like, because nothing prohibits them from doing so. Continuing to pay your graal subscriptions and for servers does absolutely nothing to convince them that they are in need of a change to please you. Cut your subscription if you are truly that dissatisfied.

The power of the moderators is much too high.
They are not omnipotent, and therefore we can't leave them up to judge this.

Huh? Is this a serious post? My post has nothing to do with democracy, nor do I even advocate anything resembling democracy. It's about logic. There's no logical reason to believe that a moderator's opinion is more valid simply because it is held by a moderator.

Googi is at least earnest with the intention to streamline communication on the forums. As opposed to some people that log on with a chip on their shoulders that want to propagate mischief and consistently break legitimate rules.

Logic?
Does not compute...at least not around here x_x

Am I wrong or is this two completely different sides of Googis report? Maybe I read it wrong but I think Googi was talking about how Yen IS NOT a hero, and yet we treat him like one.

You are correct, but I am unsure as to just how serious Excaliber's description of Yen as a hero is.

We treat him like one because he is.
If conditions were different, he would be an enemy, a fool, and a joke. However, because of the conditions on these forums, and in the administration, we consider him a martyr. It's exactly what he stated.

He is an idiot for doing it. The whole "LOL FIGHT TEH SYSTEM!!1" mentality annoys the hell out of me. Respectfully disagreeing with the rules and those enforcing them is perfectly fine. I encourage that. But when you are an ******* you're only making the situation that much worse.

I don't think he's a hero or a martyr.
He did get a bum rap, I believe, and could of gone through the proper channels to get it resolved (the first ban...not the second) or heaven forbid IGNORE it. He didn't have to be a little kid and "strike back."

So why are you so clearly calling him a hero when one of the major points of this report is to realize that Yen isn't a hero?

Exactly.

You seem to be suggesting that "being viewed as a hero" and "being a hero" are the same thing.

Define logic.

You seem to be under the impression that logic means what makes sense to you.

However, logic does not come in to play in the sense you believe in the slightest. There is perfect logic behind people holding power making decisions they believe correct. They hold all of the power, you have none of it. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that their opinion is more worthwhile than yours.

The opinion of the Moderator's is what happens. Your opinions are inconsequential - whether you are furious or pleased with a business makes no difference to the business. You cannot change what the business does, so take it or leave it. The business has absolute power as long as you agree to its terms, which you clearly do by continuing to renew your subscription. No one has a gun against your head stating you must remain here, yet you act as though you are Abbe Sieyes leading a revolution against a dictatorship more oppresive than the French Monarchy.

They have the power. You have none of it. What you determine logical is irrelevant. What they determine logical is highly relevant. Their opinion is more valid simply because their opinion has power behind it.

You make a VERY good point

I'm not even very sure Yen likes Excalibur. So why does excalibur keep trying to defend him.

Look it up.

You are applying a different definition of "valid" here. Valid, as I described it, does not mean "enforcable", it means correct. I explicitly stated that their opinions are enforcable.

A hero is someone who does something that is necessary, yet few are willing or able to do it. In that sense, he is a hero.

Explain how intentionally damaging Zodiac was necessary.

It wasn't necessary to attempt to destroy a popular server in order to get attention from Stefan. There are more responsible, mature ways he could have gone about that. It's more so how he did it than what he did which makes him nothing more than a bad memory.

It made a point

I think you need to pick up a dictionary I think you're mixing up your terms a bit too much. It wasn't necessary to make a point using Zodiac, there are other ways he could have "Made a point".

Necessary in general means that there was no other way of doing something, not that he had a good or bad reason to do so.

Yea. If you mess up you get globally banned regardless of your true intentions.

Hitler made a point with the Holocaust.


Does that make it right?

There is no need. You have found ambiguity in the term when there is none.
What is correct can only be determined in the eyes of the beholder. Do you believe everyone is hardwired with the same set of values as you are, and therefore any deviation from your values in incorrect?

This is the only conclusion I can be led to believe. Enforcing a rule that does not exist is not incorrect.

I can't go around defecating in swimming pools because there is no rule saying I cannot. There is nothing even close to saying I cannot do this. However, if I am intentionally doing so, what standing do you think my argument would have that it does not break the rules and therefore, since I paid 3 dollar admission into the pool, I have the absolute right to do it?

You reference ghost statistics, making wild claims as to what the majority is and the like. Provide some accurate numbers, not just ones you pull out of your ass based on arbitrary guidelines.

I am willing to guess that many subscribers read the forums without registering an account because their Graal account is not initially set to work on the forum, and thusly never bother to register.

The posters on the forum do not determine what content is allowable, simply because it does not offend those who are directly involved.

Graal has a reputation to protect, and it is not in the slightest bit unrealistic to believe that this community is driving potential subscribers away.

Since you wish to push everything to the limit, I suggest this be handled with a moderator elasticisty clause, that allows them to enforce whatever they please as they feel nescessary.

That way, they'd only be enforcing everything within the rules, which is what you want.

Given that there are many ways to do this, you are not explaining why it was necessary for him to intentionally damage Zodiac.

It was immature and irresponsible. He abused his immense power within the server to do something brash.

Then what need is there to ask me for a definition?

No, that's only what a person believes is correct. Facts are something that exist external to the individual.

I did not say that it is "incorrect." My post contains zero moral judgments. What I do say is that it privileges opinions based on who has them rather than whether or not they are factually correct. Whether or not that's "morally incorrect" is a subjective thing.

What kind of pool is it that has no rule against this?

I speak of the majority in terms of the "majority" cited by moderators when they defend forum policies that are unpopular with the active users. They cite a majority of less-active members that do not care because they do not come in contact with forum moderation. It is this "majority" that I am talking about.

They would be counted in the "apathetic majority" - the majority that do not care because they do not come into contact with forum moderation.

The posters on the forum do not determine what content is allowable, simply because it does not offend those who are directly involved.[/quote]

Where do I suggest that they do or even should?

I myself have stated more than once (though I do not mention it in this particular post) that forum rules should be written with profit in mind. It is Unixmad who disagrees with this suggestion.

It appears you do not understand the "elasticity clause," it merely allows the moderators to make moderations that do not enforce the rules, it doesn't mean that those moderations somehow become moderations that enforce the rules.

Edit:I just reread and understood what you said, but Yen being treated as a Hero is wrong. Trying to create the fall of Zodiac is a attack on graal and I doubt you all want graal to go. Thus if you treat him like a hero for his actions you want Graal to pretty much fall as such.

Well, it was the only target that could generate so much attention.
Not to mention the fact that he worked on it the most of anyone. Essentially, it was his server, and when things went south, he didn't want an an administration as twisted as this one to be able to profit in any way off of his work. His methods are not one that I focus on, mainly because it was the reasons behind his actions that are important in this situation Had they not existed, Yen would have done nothing. Yen was the effect to the cause of this administration.

Has this even been proven. I haven't seen Stefan make any remark to this extent.

From what I've been told, Yen was banned for no reason by "noobs" who worked on Zodiac who had too much power. Then, wanting a reason to get him in more trouble (Or maybe they were just paranoid), they suspected him of having scripts to delete the server (I just can't see Yen doing this to the work he was so very openly proud of) and shut down the NPC server and searched and found nothing. Stefan even got on and looked and found nothing. Then Stefan went ahead and banned Yen for "Being corrupt and deleting a server." Now, considering this came from the man himself (Yen), you have to take this account with a grain of salt.

But, my point is why has this blown out of proportion when there seems to be no proof to the matter. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, there's proof against it. Not only Yens odd account, either. If Stefan set the server back maybe a few weeks, as has been said, then why would account data be completely gone? I can understand when its players that haven't been playing since before that restore point, but from what I've heard it was more than just them. That just seems peculiar to me. And then the staff just decide that this calls for a complete remake of the server. Whys that? Like people have said, it's not broken.

My theory (however far fetched it may seem to people, and slightly more of a conspiracy theory, really) is that staff wanted to remake Zodiac because they weren't satisfied, or for whatever reason. Yen didn't want it changed, and wouldn't allow it. So the staff simply thought they could get rid of him and make some false reason along with it to remake it. I'll admit there is no real substantial proof to this, but I have my suspicions.

My question is this though; Why do we care? Why has this become such a big deal? Sure Yen seemed to be a pretty big member in the Graal community, most people who pay any attention know who he is, at least through word of mouth. But we act like the President was executed for trying to destroy America. Why can't we shut our mouths and go on with life? I think the same to Yen, because he is REALLY taking this too seriously. He actually told me (and quite seriously) that he would sue Linux Cyberjouers. That's absurd, and everyone knows this will go nowhere.

Please people, just get on with your daily lives, I beg of you. For you own sake.