Period of Reflection

[Stephen]

It strikes me as unusual that posts which are days - even weeks old would suddenly warrant punishment. If a post goes unnoticed for this long they should not be subject to punishment; the rationale behind this is that more active monitoring needs to occur... either through more moderators or more "dedicated" moderators.

On top of this I would also like to suggest a "Period of Reflection" be put into place before any infractions are actually issued - so that the moderating admin may have time to consider the best course of action. Essentially you would be "flagged" for an infraction at 0:00hr and upon consideration you would either be issued or waved the infraction at 24:00hr.

Too frequently action is taken with little thought and as a result the punishment is often neither effective nor professional.





Opinions?

[Tigairius]

I like the period of reflection. Sometimes it's easy to get caught up in the moment.

[Darlene159]

Why do people constantly find it necessary to rehash moderation of these forums?
You should really give it a rest already. it is becoming quite redundant.

As of right now, there is no need for more moderators. There isn't much to moderate as sooooo many have been very quick to point out almost daily.

I have no idea what you are talking about as far as punishing for days or week old posts, but it is always possible for moderators to miss something, no matter how many you have, and someone reports it, and we take care of it. Doesn't matter how old it is, unless it was a year or so.

And I am not even going to discuss professionalism with you until you learn it yourself.

The infraction system was made for exactly what we are using it for, and I am sure that unixmad had his reasons for making the rule against discussing the rules, and infractions.

It is a waste of time.

[Stephen]

I'm afraid you people refers directly to me, as such I would appreciate if you acknowledged me as Stephen rather than a group of persons - regardless of how intimidating I may be with my big words, and confusing little ones.

A conditional sentence is one which relies on conditions - and during a specified condition a action is defined. I presented the condition that some posts go unnoticed for days, sometimes even weeks. I feel this acknowledges a problem, and my suggested actions are either to improve the dedication of current moderation (a point you entire ignored) or hire some more.

I was stressing the condition mostly, and I feel it's one which should be recognized regardless of my suggested actions; where my suggestions are purely that the condition is factual.

I'm happy you're not even going to discuss it like you know. Being petty is a poor way to make any sort of point - especially if you're failing to make one.




I'm afraid the infractions system is a generic one used by modern VBulleting boards across the interwebs. I feel it is specialized enough for our MMORPG community. Your inability to recognize this does not reflect the factuality of the statement.

A waste of time, in my opinion, is making a statement with no effect other than to express your ill will and then fail to make any sort of productive or progressive comments regarding the observation I outlined in my original post - which, ironically, reflects back on professionalism.

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I'm afraid you people refers directly to me, as such I would appreciate if you acknowledged me as Stephen rather than a group of persons - regardless of how intimidating I may be with my big words, and confusing little ones.

I was referring to a group. You are not the only one who consistently brings up moderation, infractions, or the rules.

Regardless, I'm not going to continue to discuss something unixmad doesnt want discussed on the forums

Your intellectual words have no effect on me, regardless of what you may think. I understand you perfectly

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Stephen

On top of this I would also like to suggest a "Period of Reflection" be put into place before any infractions are actually issued - so that the moderating admin may have time to consider the best course of action. Essentially you would be "flagged" for an infraction at 0:00hr and upon consideration you would either be issued or waved the infraction at 24:00hr.

Too frequently action is taken with little thought and as a result the punishment is often neither effective nor professional.

As I sit here in reality, I can't help but feel confused as to how this would, a. Be any different from the current situation, and b. Work. Perhaps you could shed some light onto this.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Rufus

As I sit here in reality, I can't help but feel confused as to how this would, a. Be any different from the current situation, and b. Work. Perhaps you could shed some light onto this.

It would present a period for the moderator to disassociate from the issue if they had allowed themselves to become involved personally. To "cool down".

It's not that confusing.

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by Stephen

It would present a period for the moderator to disassociate from the issue if they had allowed themselves to become involved personally. To "cool down".

It's not that confusing.

Infractions are based on the rules, not our personal opinions or feelings.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Infractions are based on the rules, not our personal opinions or feelings.

In theory

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by Stephen

In theory

In reality

[Nabru]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Infractions are based on the rules, not our personal opinions or feelings.

****ing liar!

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Stephen

It would present a period for the moderator to disassociate from the issue if they had allowed themselves to become involved personally. To "cool down".

It's not that confusing.

Well yes, it is. There is a degree of optimism in your post, which is quite refreshing compared to all the other people who have given up; your optimism however, is exactly that, in the fact that as there are no settings or "forum hacks" to make this suitably work, you're placing the control under principles of the staff. Being the lovely human beings that they are, the ball for judgement would very much still be in their court.

It is more than likely that an authoritarian caught up in the moment will have the same opinion on a certain post, 24 hours after they read it the first time, maybe even 48 too. The problem is that if an action was hastily made, it probably still would be and like it is currently, would be received with users contesting against it.

With that in mind, yeah I still fail to see how this is any different to what we currently have. You're basically proposing an ideal that somebody in a position of authority should have already, but on these forums problems caused by this are easily fixed by a private message or something, though some users think doing so is beneath them.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Rufus

It is more than likely that an authoritarian caught up in the moment will have the same opinion on a certain post, 24 hours after they read it the first time, maybe even 48 too. The problem is that if an action was hastily made, it probably still would be and like it is currently, would be received with users contesting against it.

That's true - however the current system generates threads in the admin forums for infractions given. Flags would be the same and would produce the opportunity to discuss it - especially if a moderator or group of moderators disagreed with the infraction.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Stephen

That's true - however the current system generates threads in the admin forums for infractions given. Flags would be the same and would produce the opportunity to discuss it - especially if a moderator or group of moderators disagreed with the infraction.

I still do not see how this is any different, other than delaying the inevitable.

[Clockwork]

In truth there's like...1-2 new threads a day, maybe more. Graal isn't that fast moving, and doesn't need more moderation on it's forums.

I think we have all the moderation we need, either follow the simple rules, or enjoy being infracted. :o

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

In truth there's like...1-2 new threads a day, maybe more. Graal isn't that fast moving, and doesn't need more moderation on it's forums.

I think we have all the moderation we need, either follow the simple rules, or enjoy being infracted. :o

The problem I have observed is not a lack of moderation; it's a problem which I believe may be due in part by either the need for more moderators, or for more dedication from current moderators.

My observation was that some threads go days, or even weeks without punishment - and then suddenly one day come into realization and are punished long after the fact.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by Stephen

The problem I have observed is not a lack of moderation; it's a problem which I believe may be due in part by either the need for more moderators, or for more dedication from current moderators.

My observation was that some threads go days, or even weeks without punishment - and then suddenly one day come into realization and are punished long after the fact.

Because the things that go wrong here in the Graal forums scar you pretty badly eh?

Relax lol, at least they get punished, the worst things that might happen is a link to something dumb or a youtube video outside of the lounge. Nothing really to jump and yell at moderation for not catching it on the spot.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Because the things that go wrong here in the Graal forums scar you pretty badly eh?

Relax lol, at least they get punished, the worst things that might happen is a link to something dumb or a youtube video outside of the lounge.

It presents a poor image, and worst - is entirely unfair to the person who may have been saying it in haste, and be of an entirely different mindset hours, days, or especially weeks later.

Time doesn't justify anything - but neither does slacking - which is precisely the image it presents.

[Door]

Darlene's first post in this thread supports Stephen's idea more than any of the points being made. It's quite clear that the moderators here are human and they are capable of making mistakes. It's also quite clear that for the same reason, they feel emotions and can react to those. Darlene showed us that by generalizing Stephen's thread with all of the recent uprising threads.

I don't think this was the proper analysis at all, seeing as how he put forth his idea with respect and consideration--and the fact that it was purely a compromise. Unlike so many of the rest of us, Stephen saw that both sides were taking an extreme approach, all or nothing, massive change or no change. I can only commend him for suggesting a small, seemingly 'useless' change. I don't think he should be insulted for this, or attacked. It's obvious that by taking a middle ground he has received heat from both sides of the dispute, the moderation and the userbase.

I think he's got the right idea, and I think we should try seeing this compromise rather than just our own personal extremes.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Stephen

On top of this I would also like to suggest a "Period of Reflection" be put into place before any infractions are actually issued - so that the moderating admin may have time to consider the best course of action. Essentially you would be "flagged" for an infraction at 0:00hr and upon consideration you would either be issued or waved the infraction at 24:00hr.

Just what is it that you're expecting the consequences of the implementation of such a system to be?

[DustyPorViva]

As good as the idea sounds in theory, it wouldn't work out. Moderation tends to lay the hammer down and never give it a second thought. If a second thought is ever proposed(IE: a PM of appeal) it is simply discarded anyways. I don't think the problem can be solved by 'calming down' or rationalizing, but by introducing more opinions to the moderator pool. It sucks that you can only realistically go to two moderators about a moderation, especially when both think alike.