Moderator Suggestion Box

[ZanderX]

So apparently you guys have a lot of problems with the moderation team in general.

So here you go. Feel more than free to make any suggestions, criticisms towards the moderation team, edits to the rules, anything of that sort.

I'll make it very clear up front however that this is not a thread for arguments or debates. If you are going to respond to someone's post, it needs to be because you are ADDING something to a criticism, suggestion, or anything else left by another user.

So, just to cover the ground rules of this thread.

What you can do:

• Make suggestions as to what we, the mods, can do better on the forums.
• Criticize the mod team. Please make your criticisms well thought out and not pointless, personal jabs.
• Suggest changes or additions to the rules to make the forums a friendlier place.
• Make an addition to another user's post/suggestion/criticism in the form of a quote.
• Any other forum suggestions that would make the forums better.

What you cannot do:

• Flame another user or staff member.
• Start a discussion of someone else's suggestion/criticism.
• Start any sort of off-topic discussion in this thread.
• Make suggestions related towards Graal the Game. This is strictly forums-related.

I will be liberally deleting posts that are not in line with the goals of this thread. I am simply letting you know all this in advance so that when I inevitably delete your post you don't scream and cry.


Have at it, ladies (what few of you there are) and gents (and boys).

[CheeToS2]

I'd like it if the signature height limit were smaller; some peoples signatures are obnoxiously huge.

I'm pondering if it would be useful to have a third supermod from a European country to watch the forums when Moonie and yourself are sleeping, but I think the forums would only benefit from that in the case of an emergency, since you two handle the regular operations dandily, in my opinion.

[excaliber7388]

Originally Posted by CheeToS2

I'd like it if the signature height limit were smaller; some peoples signatures are obnoxiously huge.

I'm pondering if it would be useful to have a third supermod from a European country to watch the forums when Moonie and yourself are sleeping, but I think the forums would only benefit from that in the case of an emergency, since you two handle the regular operations dandily, in my opinion.

Mine is close to 300, I don't think 300 pix is so bad The ones that are so big ARE above 300 pix already

[Minoc]

Some of the rules should be modified.

Mostly taken from my old thread:


1) Do not make threads to bash a playerworld. If you have a problem you wish to report please contact a member of the Playerworld Administration. If you have a problem that can be sorted out locally (jails, scams, some bans etc... please contact a staff member on the playerworld first)

Bashing is obviously wrong, however, in some cases, discussions would be more helpful to see both sides much more clearly. Do you recall the Graal2000 thread?



2) Do not post private history.

In most cases private history can't do any harm.
Lycia is banned thanks to private history.


3) You are not permitted to discuss illegal activities such as game piracy on the board.

We should be able to discuss illegal activities without providing ways to perform them.



4) If you are banned, the ban applies to you specifically - not merely your account. If you return to the board with a new account, it is considered evasion of your ban - regardless of how much time has passed since the original banning. If you obtain special permission to post from a high admin, you must make the moderators aware of this by contacting a supermod before you register your account. If you do not, your account may still be banned.

The banned player should be able to register a new account and send private messages.



5) Furthermore, you are not permitted to post messages on the behalf of non-members.

Should depend on the case, as long as it isn't done constantly.



6) Accounts that take the form 'Admin-Playerworldxxx' or other local staff accounts (staff accounts rae defined as accounts which only work on the server its name contains, for example: Graal2001_FAQ) are not to be used on the message board. These exist purely for administration of the relevant playerworld. Upgrading them yourself (a bad idea anyway) does not remove this restriction.

A few players have had their staff accounts upgraded BEFORE that rule existed, they should obviously be able to post.



7) Discussions of bans are not permissible. If you have a question about a ban or would like to make an appeal, contact the relevant administrator by Forum PM (Private Message) or by e-mail.

Same as #1.

[excaliber7388]

I agree with all thats above, as usual. Heh, no mod intervention, no wonder no one's arguing
the only thing I disagree with is the illegal activities. People should be alowed to post about illegal activities, but as a reminder, they can be reported for it Other than that, these are some pretty sweet ideas. Lets just wait till Moonie gets back though

[Skyld]

Originally Posted by Minoc

The banned player should be able to register a new account and send private messages.

I disagree with this.

I think if you have been banned, then you have somehow caused disruption or otherwise abused the service, and in that case, you should have the service withdrawn.

Originally Posted by Loriel

make the swear filter a setting in the Options thingie for every account.

I'm not sure that is a simple modification, or really acceptable.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by Skyld

I'm not sure that is a simple modification, or really acceptable.

It would solve most of the issues people have with the swear filter without defeating its purpose.

[xAndrewx]

Originally Posted by CheeToS2

I'm pondering if it would be useful to have a third supermod from a European country to watch the forums when Moonie and yourself are sleeping, but I think the forums would only benefit from that in the case of an emergency, since you two handle the regular operations dandily, in my opinion.

Skyld.

[Crono]

Very specific reasons for closing threads. For example, nothing like "PM ME LOL". I'd rather see a nice description as to why a certain thread is closed so that

1) It's harder to repeat the same mistake.

2) We can see whether the mod based their decision off the rules of not.

Flexibility of speech. I notice that we're slowly, again, being more and more restricted on what we can say and what we can't say.

1) Draw a concrete line between flaming and debating. This should help us when posting to make sure it's not stepping over the line.

2) Stop using "unixmad wants it" as an excuse. Rather than saying it, prove it. Don't lie.

[excaliber7388]

(Along with everything posted above)
-If you make up a new rule, at least put it in the forum rules.
-Learn to take critism, if people have sugestions, listen to them, THEY are the userbase, THEY are the ones paying for Graal
-More free speech
-Removal of that stupid anti-*** rule, it's discrimination.
-You KNOW I have more....I just have to think a bit more

[Lao_Su2]

Originally Posted by Gerami

Very specific reasons for closing threads. For example, nothing like "PM ME LOL". I'd rather see a nice description as to why a certain thread is closed so that

1) It's harder to repeat the same mistake.

I agree with the first part of this. I think it would help greatly in numerous threads being made.

[Loriel]

• make the swear filter a setting in the Options thingie for every account.
• require post deletions/thread closures to show a reason directly citing a rule.
  • do not close/delete threads on the OP's request
  • do not close/delete threads because they get "out of hand", rather actively moderate
    discussions instead of arbitrarily ending them
• less super-moderation, more localised moderators
• reword the rules; make them more compact and more structurised
  • have Kai do that, or someone. He knows precise wording
  • clearly separate rules and rationale
  • silently enforce the SA forum rules
• make the use of the :spam: and !pissed! emoticons bannable, give warnings for >_<
• reduce the signature size limits oh god my signature is huge

[Googi]

Like I said in another thread, most of these problems can be solved simply by having moderators have to cite the rule or rules the post/thread breaks whenever they close or delete a post/thread. This can be done by quoting the rule(s) that the post/thread broke or by numbering the rules and then citing that number.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by Googi

Like I said in another thread, most of these problems can be solved simply by having moderators have to cite the rule or rules the post/thread breaks whenever they close or delete a post/thread. This can be done by quoting the rule(s) that the post/thread broke or by numbering the rules and then citing that number.

That is what I said too. Partially.

[Googi]

We have European admins.

[Spark910]

Originally Posted by Googi

We have European admins.

Who do nothing much forum wise. Yes, including me!

[GoZelda]

Deleting a post because someone is "offended" is ridiculous and should be removed.

Before continuing a debate or anything similar, a mod should think "Am I right or getting my ass handed on a plate?" and if the latter is the case (youknowwhoImean!) the mod should step out of the argument.

[Lord Sephiroth]

I didn't read all the suggestions because I don't have a lot of time right now so here's mine.

I would like to see the Mods read and consider a thread before they delete it based on a rule that is broken. You'd be hard pressed to find threads that don't break rules somewhere inside, so consider what the thread is talking about, consider the responses and see what may come of the thread before closing/deleting it.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by Lord Sephiroth

I didn't read all the suggestions because I don't have a lot of time right now so here's mine.

• make tl;dr bannable

[excaliber7388]

make the use of the and emoticons bannable, give warnings for

??? Why?
300pix isn't so bad
Mods should have to clearly state a rule nefore deleting posts, or closing threads. And yes, no more of this offensive topic crap.

[Skyld]

Originally Posted by excaliber7388

Mods should have to clearly state a rule nefore deleting posts, or closing threads. And yes, no more of this offensive topic crap.

To be honest, I do not see why they should have to.

It's up to the judgement of the moderator in question whether the thread or post is suitable. If it's been deleted, you accept it, learn from it and move on.

[excaliber7388]

Originally Posted by Skyld

To be honest, I do not see why they should have to.

It's up to the judgement of the moderator in question whether the thread or post is suitable. If it's been deleted, you accept it, learn from it and move on.

But sometimes I forget why an old post was deleted for the reason of 'stop'
Plus, often posts are deleted for no infringement on the rules.

[Skyld]

Originally Posted by excaliber7388

Plus, often posts are deleted for no infringement on the rules.

Like I said, moderator's judgement on whether it's suitable. It's not all about the rules, y'know?

[excaliber7388]

Originally Posted by Skyld

Like I said, moderator's judgement on whether it's suitable. It's not all about the rules, y'know?

But the moderator's judgement doesn't always reflect the common oppinion...or common sense for that matter. (Not you though )

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Skyld

Like I said, moderator's judgement on whether it's suitable. It's not all about the rules, y'know?

Apparently in your system it's not about the rules at all.

[Mark Sir Link]

A major point that all you supporters of this "Free Speech" mission is that CyberJoueurs is a CORPORATION. Do you think having a message board that allows the free insult/debate of touchy issues is best for a corporation? Piss off the wrong people, and you lose customers. Find an alternative location to socialize. You all are NOT the next great philosophers of tommorow, the debates to why free speech should be on the forums is inane at best. If you believe all places on the internet should have Freedom of Speech, go liberate some other forums.

[excaliber7388]

So if a mod thinks a person deserves to be flamed, they can let them? Mods have to be bound by rules as well. And free speech doesn't turn people off. But hearing that they're being heavily censored does. I love a good debate All topics that do not offend a group (racist, etc), or are about R rated (or X ) subjects, or flaming, shouldn't be allowed ( I might have missed one or two, but you get the point). But other than that, it's not really hurting anyone

[protagonist]

• Allow the discussion of illegal activies, while deleting posts that appear to promote illegal activities. For example, allow one to argue for or against the legalization of marijuana, but not encourage using it as long as it is illegal.
• Allow discussion of topics such as homosexuality, abortion, and so on. These are real issues and the majority, if not the entirety, of the GraalOnline population is already graphically aware of them, Do not use the forums as a shelter from the real world, particularly the NGRF.
• Cease the closing of threads due to a post or number of posts. If a user is repeatedly breaking rules, ban that user for a day. Do not close the thread because someone inside it is misbehaving.
• Allow the discussion of the rules and discussion of bans. Make a public ban list available, along with reasons behind the bans. This is just a good way of keeping the community aware of the moderators' actions, which is a good thing as it establishes more transparency and more trust between community and moderators.
• Do not close a topic just because it offends someone. Forum users are well capable of choosing what they wish to view, and they may only say they are "offended" because they wish to close the thread due to personal interests.
• Punish moderators who make bad calls or who make decisions based outside of the rules (this would be decided collectively by at least two supermoderators). These punishments could include temporarily revoking their special powers. This system applies to supermoderators as well as local moderators.
• Allow posting of personal histories, with the clause that no personal history is guaranteed to be accurate. I remember being pissed on because I posted a personal history in the private PWA forums by a certain supermod we are all familiar with. This rule is idiotic, especially considering much of the private forums use personal history as evidence for playerworld investigations, ec cetera.
• Allow fights between users. Fights are fun, relieve stress, and as long as they don't get too verbally vulgar, do not hurt anyone other than the users or the image of the forum.
• Allow the criticism of playerworlds, out of courtesy for the players. Do not just allow the promotion of playerworlds.
• Disallow moderators from citing Unixmad as a reason for a decision. Make unixmad enforce rules that are not in the rule list, and make the moderators only consider those posts which actually violate a rule.

[Warcaptain]

I strongly think that proper representation is the way to go.

I totally agree that no one should EVER say 'Unixmad says this' if Unixmad says something he should come and say it here.

Also I think (and this is probably impossible) that someone reasonable and as non-partisan as possible to sit down and right very specific and organized rules that offer protection if something goes wrong but not "oh now that this issue arises we decided its bad, closed thread' I dont like how rules are just made up on the fly. I think that if you have some problem with a thread that isnt immediately breaking any rules you should post to discuss things in the thread, or create a new post to see what the public thinks.

I always hear "Its inappropriate for children, which is what graal is geared towards" But how many children do you see on these forums? And if you DO see them on here.. they are generally the most vulgar and rude of them all. Its the older, more senior users that seem to be the most.. respectful to conduct (aside from Clash and Malinko) Whatever audience you really want to go for, isnt really what you should worry about.. you should worry about the ones that have already given you their money.. and work to keep them giving you their money. Because if you keep trying to bring in new people of a certain demographic, and you cant find it but get people you dont want.. treat them like crap and make them leave.. where are you? You have no loyal customers except those that enjoy arguing on these forums.

Also I totally agree with Loriel on the censor being an option.. I really dont care about curse words and could care less. Also maybe do some filter that is something like "Mark thread as adult only" if you are concerned about children. And create some way of validating that sort of thing, (validating using a credit card is as secure as you need to really be thats what porn sites use and a little disclaimer when you select to be an 'adult' user that says YOU ARE AGREEING THAT YOU ARE 18 blah blah..) that way people that are 'mature' enough to handel conversations about homosexuality and abortion or even things like more adult violent pw's (would open the door to them) would be able to have a place to discuss things.. and youd be able to protect these unknown youngsters from ever knowing about the real world

[Spark910]

Originally Posted by Warcaptain

Also maybe do some filter that is something like "Mark thread as adult only" if you are concerned about children. And create some way of validating that sort of thing, (validating using a credit card is as secure as you need to really be thats what porn sites use and a little disclaimer when you select to be an 'adult' user that says YOU ARE AGREEING THAT YOU ARE 18 blah blah..) that way people that are 'mature' enough to handel conversations about homosexuality and abortion or even things like more adult violent pw's (would open the door to them) would be able to have a place to discuss things.. and youd be able to protect these unknown youngsters from ever knowing about the real world

This would be impossible to work as intended. Why? The majority of people who upgrade use credit/debit cards. When I borrowed my parents card to upgrade to Graal they let me do it, as they didn't know anything about the internet then - they didn't even watch me. I would imagine there are other parents who do the same. So, the problem? What would stop me entering in this validator, even though I'm not 18? Or what would stop me telling my parents to enter it also in another box, I could easily lie to them.

We can't have adult topics on this forum, period. But about your example of homosexuality and abortion, I don't class them as adult topics really - in the sense they can be discussed without being 18 (which is logic as there are plenty under 18s who are homosexual and have abortions). So I don't think we need this system of allowing adult threads, we just need to be able to discuss suitable topics (and discussion on homosexuality and abortion can be suitable) without excessive censorship.

Perhaps another forum could be made for this, though, maybe invite only (although I'm not so sure I would ever approve that), instead I think a public forum where rights to view it could be removed (so everyone starts on the same level, and is given a chance). Those who can't discuss such topics in a suitable manor, can be removed from having access. However, I am not so sure if this would be needed, and if it is what you could call the forum to define it as being different from NGRT forum.

I too agree the 'unixmad says' is overused. We need to lighten up a little here. I don't agree he should come here and say it, as he wont, and then the forums would just go into havock waiting for him to come and say things. The rules should be rewritten and enforced, but it shouldn't ever be 'unixmad says' it should be 'the rules state...'.

[Mark Sir Link]

Originally Posted by Spark910

This would be impossible to work as intended. Why? The majority of people who upgrade use credit/debit cards. When I borrowed my parents card to upgrade to Graal they let me do it, as they didn't know anything about the internet then - they didn't even watch me. I would imagine there are other parents who do the same. So, the problem? What would stop me entering in this validator, even though I'm not 18? Or what would stop me telling my parents to enter it also in another box, I could easily lie to them.

The main implementation wouldn't be to keep the kids who are under 18, it'd be to keep the people who don't WANT TO see it out. Enter at ones own risk, entering waives right to complaint.

[Spark910]

Originally Posted by Mark Sir Link

The main implementation wouldn't be to keep the kids who are under 18, it'd be to keep the people who don't WANT TO see it out. Enter at ones own risk, entering waives right to complaint.

But a child entering shouldn't, and wont, erode the parents right to complain.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by Warcaptain

I totally agree that no one should EVER say 'Unixmad says this' if Unixmad says something he should come and say it here.

Wait, is Unixmad being too busy for this not the single reason to have moderators?

I always hear "Its inappropriate for children, which is what graal is geared towards" But how many children do you see on these forums?

Perhaps it is because the forums are not family-friendly enough right now!

Also maybe do some filter that is something like "Mark thread as adult only" if you are concerned about children.

That is actually an awesome idea. Have two sets of rules, one that is about strictly disallowed things like hax0ring the interweb, and one that is about not making other people feel bad. Give people the option to still see threads that were pseudo-deleted for violating the second set of rules!

[MysticX2X]

Well moderators opinion on the rules are biased and i know it happened to me which ill leave out. I would like to see more firm opinion then thinking this is something against the rules when you think its not. Yes the rules are clearly stated, but it comes to opinion if its really bad or not. Also id like to see some more professional deletion comments unlike what Darlene does now.

[excaliber7388]

I like the >= 18 rule, but I doubt anyone will do it

[protagonist]

Of course people would violate that rule, just as many people violate the "must be 13" rule as it is.

Fact is, GraalOnline has a responsibility to disregard those individuals when it comes to decisions regarding age policy.

[Googi]

Suggesting a >=18 rule is a big mistake, since it would give moderators justification to ban us from discussing those things in normal threads like we've always been able to do.

[excaliber7388]

-bannings of all players who are under 12
-if no >= 18 rule, then at least allow free speech that doesn't involve things 12 yr olds should see

[CidNight1142]

Originally Posted by Loriel

But you do not get away with suing people for stuff like that. There is loads of "mature" content on the interweb that can be accessed without confirming that you are beyond 18.

I agree that the evidence would firmly be on Graalonline's side, obviously. But you can never really have too much ass coverage in this day and age.

[Damix2]

If we are not mature enough to talk about homosexuality, then we are not mature enough to talk about politics, but you guys don't seem to have a problem with that.