These forums

[Amaroq]

Originally posted by Michael Foster:

Im suprised nobody has suggested moving the House Rules Forum to the top above GQ, at least then they dont have the excuse ofnot reading the rules cause they couldnt find them because there at the bottom.

That's a very good idea, actually.

If I come into the forum with "pretend to be a new user" eyes:

1. I land at the base "The Forums" - there's no "rules" at the top there. There probably should be!!

2. I click "GQ" - I see the release date, the latest version, and the "Rule" - "Suggestions for future versions should be posted in their own topic."

My eye then tracks to "Subforums" - FM Xbox 360? FM Handheld? Editors/Data Updates? .. and without getting to the end of the list (where Forum Rules" is), I decide this list isn't for me, and I skip down to the first stickied topic.

. . .

The Forum Rules would be much much more visible if:

1. There was a banner a the top of "The Forums" which read: "NEW USERS: Please read the Forum Rules before posting.

2. The Forum Rules forum was the top forum of "The Forums"

3. The Forum Rules was called out in the GQ banner, between "7.0.2" and "Suggestions" - Again, with link.

4. A link to the Forum Rules was the top sticky in every forum.

Originally posted by Ackter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This isn't a forum full of lawyers or actuaries trying to comply with legislation. Let's be realistic here - not everyone reads the rules and those who do don't print them out and refer to them every time they post.

It takes about 5 minutes to read them and they're pretty easy to remember.

Mods are busy enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assuming a "Cut and Paste", or even better, a keyboard macro - it really shouldn't take ages to post

"This thread is in violation of the Forum Rules"

It took me 20 seconds. And I had to go find the link.

If the problem is "New user hasn't read the rules", at very least that puts them right in front of him - and if he's thinking to himself "What did I do?" he's got a spot he can answer that for himself instead of harassing the mods.

With good software, it could even be part of the "Close Thread" button - no typing required on the part of the mod, period. (Unless he wanted to edit the explanation, e.g., an FMS mod changing it to "This is not a story.")

Originally posted by Glyn:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4. make it possible to edit my own posts. (like i would like to now) :-) )

We did allow editing in the past, but that feature was abused as well. So we dropped it to prevent further abuse from happening </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are several technical solutions to that, too.

1. Make whatever the "Report Abuse" button report, include the content of the post.

The mod can see what it was, not what it is now.

2. Tie it to a real-Karma-system. Users must reach a level the mods define as "consistently positive over 2-4 weeks" before they're allowed to edit their posts.

3. Make it suspendable-by-user. I may have earned it, but if I then go to town abusing people and editing back out of the abuse, rashidi revokes my privilege. In fact, it might be the first "stick" for long-time users. "2 week suspension of editing privileges."

Originally posted by rashidi1:

If some posts are long and require some edit..the moderators usually do it either without being asked or after an email.

Hmm. Somehow, I'd never realized I could ask the mods in GQ to edit my posts.

Originally posted by chopper99:

Amaroq's obviously got far too much time on his hands

Seriously, part of why I do post-in-detail is to try and raise that signal-to-noise ratio .. I feel like if just a few more of us give up, GQ will be useless indeed.. and I'm on the verge of deciding to abandon it and go join wwfan, rashidi1, and Cleon in T&TT.

I don't think a "minimum length" requirement is useful, unless its something like "5 characters" - and even then "No." can sometimes be all that's needed. Ackter's succinct answers often help the OP as much or more as mine do - and Dayle, you rock, so don't worry about it.

(Oooh.. pie graphs!)

[Jimbokav1971]

Originally posted by Michael Foster:

Im suprised nobody has suggested moving the House Rules Forum to the top above GQ, at least then they dont have the excuse ofnot reading the rules cause they couldnt find them because there at the bottom.

If you look at the thread from over a year ago that I linked to earlier in this thread, you will se that this was suggested at that time and no action was taken.

[FrazT]

This is exactly what I am concerned about- after much discuusion in the forum police thread, this was one of the most requested points and would appear to have slipped through the net. Afetr such a long and detailed discuusion as this thread, it is not too much to ask that either Miles or one of the SI team ( who started the thread after all )to come back to the community and outline what their thoughts are and what , if anything, is going to be the outcome of this. I

If there is no official response without some form of communication, then I cant see what the point of asking the community to comment is.

[Spanky]

Guys, this thread is not even open a week.

It was started by SI, so let's give them some time to digest it, maybe run a few things by the techies and discuss it among themselves before we start giving out.

And to say what everyone's thinking - I agree with Amaroq and also would like more pie charts

[Mr.Bojangles]

I just wanted to say that I'm really happy that something is being done about this. I was a fairly regular lurker, occasional poster until last december. I couldn't remember my username hence the new one.

The constant arguing and belittlement of others really annoyed me and made me not want to post.

The way forward, as far as I'm concerned, is more moderators. The ones already around do a good job, but there is nowhere near enough.

Editing could probably be enabled if there were five of so mods at any one time. Maybe make the Report This Post button a bit bigger. In fact would you be able to make this button send the post as it is written to the mods?

Not being able to edit annoys me since I really HATE spelling/grammar mistakes.

In any case, that's my two cents.

[Nene_Park_Faithfull]

I think users over a certain amount of karma should be able to edit their own posts. Or does this already happen?

[dafuge]

Originally posted by Nene_Park_Faithfull:

I think users over a certain amount of karma should be able to edit their own posts. Or does this already happen?

I think it's only mods that can edit posts, plus a few extra people like Sheer Class for his work in the data forum.

[Box]

Originally posted by Taz & The Devil:

I'm sorry Box but those ideas you have singled out as the best. I actually think they have gone way off track. they dont do anything to improve the standard of the board but just make it harder for people to get on here.

When these people have paid their money or got their code out of the box what then stops them being just the same abusive non welcoming bunch that we have now who would rather abuse a new user than point them in the right direction?

As i mentioned earlier on, having the money to pay for access doesnt make you a good user.

I think those ideas are indeed relevant and precisely what’s needed. I don’t think in a million years they will ever, ever get implemented on these forums though, simply because as already has been pointed out SI and many of us lot want the moon on a stick. We all seem to want an open for all forum but want everyone to behave - and that just isn't going to happen if you open your doors too all and sundry.

If you want a higher calibre user to create a friendly and interesting atmosphere then you've got to make your user group a little more exclusive. Making it a more difficult to get access to the forum will weed out the guys who either just stumble upon the forum as something to do , or to ask where they can get the game from for free , or indeed the kids who only come here to make irrelevant and lazy posts for a karma rating. After all, what are users going to respect and treat better, something they are given for free without any kind of struggle or something they earn?

The non-free (e.g. hotmail or yahoo) mail account for registration has already been proven as a success on these very boards – this was a registration requirement only up until a few years back. It’s now gone and oh look – people are complaining about the dross who frequent the boards!

As for a paid for /subscribed service, I appreciate its unpopular but it cannot be denied it is indeed an effective way to administrate the boards. Yes, sure you could and would get idiots who would subscribe and breach the rules, but the difference is its their own money they are wasting if/when they are banned for a few days/wees or even permanently. I tell you what, when it’s their own money they are wasting, it’s going to quickly educate people to play by the rules!

It’s a proven method for preventing game cheats with systems such as punkbuster and steam – sure you can cheat, but if you get caught that’s it, it’s a new copy of the game and an explanation for mummy and daddy why you are buying the same game as you did last week! See how many spammers you get back week after week on a subscribed service!

Five years ago people would have laughed off the idea of gamers PAYING to play an online game they have already paid for , basically for using a game server – now look how popular MMO games are. Even FM is going MMO with subscribed services. So if you get a new version of FM for £17.99 , would you really begrudge paying a further £10 for a yeas subscription to the forum access ? Many people pay £30 -£40 a game and then gout and buy the user guide , would this forum not be considered the same sort of thing? Especially if you knew you were going to be getting a much higher calibre of users on here?

I’m sorry, I know how much many of you lot hate paying for quality and that everything should be given to you for nothing, but personally I believe nothing is free, and I don’t expect any different when I go online – you get what you pay for.

Originally posted by chopper99:

Not every answer needs to be 100 lines long. Quality of posts isn't always connected to their length so I don't really see your point. I could waffle on for 100 lines and it could still be rubbish, insulting or rude.

At the same time many questions can be answered constructively with one or two lines, or a link

True, but restricting it to some extent would certainly reduce the 1 word, or as is really popular these days, the “smiley†reply wouldn’t it. Would putting a character restriction of say 15-20 characters really hurt? Where as it would definitely reduce spam. How many discussions do you enjoy reading with 1 or two word replies?

[chargreaves]

BIG thumbs up to Miles for doing a good thing to clean up these forums. I find these forums a great tool and hope that they will improve after this unfortunate "bad" spell.

P.S. Can't wait for FM08 got the Birthday money ready to pre-order

[playmaker]

Box, I think you are missing one point. Improving the quality of threads is not the only aim - improving the volume of threads is part of it.

What you suggest will reduce the quantity considerably and will almost certainly kill the forum once and for all. And what happens to the newbies that just want a quick question answered? Do they have to pay £10 for the privelege?

The forum used to have considerably more posters, considerably more threads and was much more friendly and open. The number of drivel threads has not increased - the number of good threads has decreased.

What we absolutely don't need on this forum is to make it exclusive. Exclusivity usually goes hand in hand with exactly the sort of attitude that Miles is condemning. Far from keeping out the riff raff it actually promotes arrogance.

If it becomes an exclusive forum then I want no part of it. This game is about everyone and limiting access to the forum goes against everything that SI are trying to promote. It would be a marketing disaster.

The more I read this thread the more I realise that it is not aimed at the newbies that we are all trying to control, it is aimed at experienced idiots like me who feel like they have to correct every misdemenour on here.

The experienced users have a responsibilty to change the way they post and start more decent threads. The newbies will soon follow suit.

[Mr.Bojangles]

In addition to playmakers' points about paying for the forum: unofficial websites would immediately spring up and everyone would use them instead. I know I would.

[Alurny]

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Michael Foster:

Im suprised nobody has suggested moving the House Rules Forum to the top above GQ, at least then they dont have the excuse ofnot reading the rules cause they couldnt find them because there at the bottom.

If you look at the thread from over a year ago that I linked to earlier in this thread, you will se that this was suggested at that time and no action was taken. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would hopefully help with those repeated posts! I think people should be forced to read them on signup as well (and extablished members should seek to keep to them!)

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissays]

The whole free email account thing drove me absolutely nuts, I have been a keen CM/FM fan but due to my free account email use and isp changes was always stunted when remembering account details.

While many persons are childish and inane I believe some just want to be part of the community and post pithy comments to keep up conversation, which usually changes the topic in question, fizzling out threads.

Still this is important if the comments are friendly as you get a picture of who's opinion you is worthy listening to.

How about a separate forum where posting anything inane get you a yellow card, then one more a red card and a 6month or 3 month ban from those particular forums, or all forums.

New members only get one chance to root out the resigners.

Then you get quality and general fm idiots.....

As for paying for service, ever used steam? Pffff, premium that haha

[thefootman]

Originally posted by Amaroq:

Community - I don't agree with the person who said that they don't feel a sense of community.

Sure, the new user doesn't feel that. But its up to the rest of us to provide the environment that nurtures those relationships, and helps the new user grow into that productive style of behavior.

Karma - I'm with rashidi1 on this one. I think the system of "title from volume" is pretty ludicrous; it encourages the behavior we want to discourage. If "+1" in a thread you can tell is about to get closed is worth just as much as one of Dave C's epic articles.. **shaking my head**

On the other hand, acknowledgement-from-the-community, whether its in the form of an *actual* Karma system, user-voted awards, a custom-title system, or otherwise, can be used to encourage the behaviors we want.

I think all these points are good one's.When I first joined the community I immediately felt part of it simply because it

connected me to other people who played the game.The fact that it was the first forum I'd ever joined was no doubt another

factor.I've since registered with the community at a rival game (but that was an error of judgement on my part).

Although I don't understand how the *actual* Karma system works,I agree that the current system does nothing to reflect the

quality of posts or threads being made.If this was addressed it could help to encourage new and existing user's to improve

the quality and even quantity of their posting and acknowledgement would surely increase their sense of community.

This of course is what we all want but it will only be relevent to those who actually care.

I also believe a better feedback system within the game to help people work out where they are going wrong could help to

prevent a lot of repeat threads.A lot of these often result in poor behaviour because user's simply get frustrated and

then take it out on those trying to help them.

I think I read that we have 100,000 registered members and I can only assume that a large percentage of those don't even post.

There could be a lot of user's out there with insight and ideas on the game who don't contribute because they feel too intimidated

from what they read on the forums (particulary in GQ).I feel this way myself sometimes and rarely start threads.

If that's the case then it's a shame.I think there will always be an element who come on with no other intention but to cause

trouble and it is difficult at times not to get involved.Sometimes this just makes matters worse with other user's telling fellow

members to stop acting like moderators even when they are trying to diffuse the situation.I think the answer to this particular

issue is simple.Don't get involved.

I think the mods we have do a great job but (as has already been suggested) maybe we need more of them to weed out the

element that seem to be alienating so many experienced user's from GQ.

Combined with other good suggestions it could help to keep the forums a friendly and welcoming environment for all.

Regards

[Gary Toner]

Originally posted by Nene_Park_Faithfull:

I think users over a certain amount of karma should be able to edit their own posts. Or does this already happen?

Ok so say for instance I didn't like someone for whatever reason and I was an asshole. Since I have a high karma level I could "bully" that person into making a stupid comment. While I can edit my post to make myself seem innocent and him the bad guy. Resulting in said person being punished.

Not really a good idea

[gavnoble]

Originally posted by playmaker:

The more I read this thread the more I realise that it is not aimed at the newbies that we are all trying to control, it is aimed at experienced idiots like me who feel like they have to correct every misdemenour on here.

The experienced users have a responsibilty to change the way they post and start more decent threads. The newbies will soon follow suit.

Without the basics being put into place then you are not going to see the more experienced users enticed back in here to post. Result? Quality goes downhill even further.

I strongly feel that SI made a rod for their own back in this forum by not being firm enough for fear of alienating customers.

There's a proverb that goes 'Spare the rod, spoil the child'. It is very true in here that by sparing the rod the children have been spoilt.

There's nothing wrong at all with firm but fair discipline for those that break the rules and I'm not talking about then immediate giving out of cards or bans as others have mentioned. A firm but friendly warning from the moderators is often enough in the first case, which is then only backed up with cards/bans is the same rule is constantly broken by the same user.

Dealing with those that break the rules in here - and I apply this to every user, myself included - is just like disciplining your own children; it's often as unpleasant for those giving out the punishment as it is to those receiving it, but the benefits long term far outweight the short term effects.

Those suggesting paid forums - again I'm not in favour of this, though I did like Glyns idea of having a forum that can only be accessed via a in-game validation code.

I don't think much to having special custom status or Kudos. Creates another social class that eliminates a lot of users and would probably create more friction than it causes.

As for getting rid of the current karma rating - what would that solve exactly? The way I look at the current karma system is that it's only there for a bit of fun and certainly when I started posting it was quite cool to move up to the next level. Those with maturer outlooks will understand that lots of posts doesn't mean they a user is a god on the forums. Quality is so much better than quantitiy, but there's something nice about moving through the football ranks via the karma system.

[Rashidi]

Over at the Tactics and Training Forum Cleon and I operate on the basis of discipline and strict adherence to forum rules. The rules there are very clear as we want the forum to be a discussion, not a venue for the aimless dumping of tactics. A member actually volunteered to outsource the hosting of tactics for free and that freed us up to have discussions.

Prior to this it used to people who hardly put a thought into their tactics..a thread would pop up with a simple one liner and a request to try this "all conquering tactic". A stop was put to all of this. We didn't or we hope we haven't alienated the users who want help, by attempting to protect good discussions that happen in the forum. The quality of discussions has improved and good discussions stay near the top, an FAQ with oft-asked questions is stickied along with a thread compiling the best discussions around.

IMHO discipline is needed, any well governed society cannot operate as a perfectly free society. Freedom of speech and quality of speech can only occur if the society has members willing to abide by strict laws that encourage a common respect for individual rights. Those rights however cannot be used to abuse others. And this is how the rule of law is applied. We shouldn't tolerate the breaking of rules, but we should be fair and even-handed at all times, everyone gets the same treatment whether they've been a member for 1 day or for 1000 days. Understanding should also be shown for newer members who fail to behave, their failure is our failure as a community, for tis the larger population that has failed to set the example one is to follow.

[Jimbokav1971]

Gav.

I strongly feel that SI made a rod for their own back in this forum by not being firm enough for fear of alienating customers.

Excellent comment .

The forums with the least leniant moderators seem to be the places that people are moving to, (with the exception of OTF which is a different story). LLM has seen a considerable influx of regular posters over the last year or so despite it being VERY differently run than GQ.

In LLM Iajafar gives you a chance, (and many of the regulars too). Even if your 1st post names players, discusses a tactic, says that you have used the editor in the past, and that you used to visit the GPGF, if after being told to "go look at the forum header", you apologise and say that it is your intention to adhere strictly to the LLM rules, then although you will not exactly be welcomed with open arms, at lesat you will be allowed to prove whether you belong to post there.

Although I don't go in there, the same can be said for for T&TGF by ball accounts with Cleon and Rashidi really taking no poo and not standing for any nonsense.

God I remember years ago being really intimidated by PM7 and some of the guys in FMS. They would tear people to shreds who abused the rules too often. (Gotta get back in there one day).

It may seen as churlish to some to point out where errors have been made, but unless lessons are learned and steps put inplace to rectufy the matter, all we will have in another years time is a link to this thread in a new thread that contains all the same points, (only made by significantly fewer people).

[Glyn]

Originally posted by gavnoble:

I strongly feel that SI made a rod for their own back in this forum by not being firm enough for fear of alienating customers.

SI have said no such thing.

[Seagulls Forever]

Originally posted by Glyn:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gavnoble:

I strongly feel that SI made a rod for their own back in this forum by not being firm enough for fear of alienating customers.

SI have said no such thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glyn, you're doing yourself and SI no favours. Being economical with the truth is not clever. Neither is being rude to forum members as you have been today.

One of the mods earlier in this thread pointed out that banning was defined as a last resort. One can easily and correctly assume that this is an SI policy. Why would they have such a policy? For precisely the reasons gav stated. And if you want to deny it a third time, try looking at my post in which I refuted the original claim that it was never said.

[gavnoble]

Thanks Seagulls - was about to say the same thing.

[Glyn]

Originally posted by Seagulls Forever:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glyn:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gavnoble:

I strongly feel that SI made a rod for their own back in this forum by not being firm enough for fear of alienating customers.

SI have said no such thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glyn, you're doing yourself and SI no favours. Being economical with the truth is not clever. Neither is being rude to forum members as you have been today.

One of the mods earlier in this thread pointed out that banning was defined as a last resort. One can easily and correctly assume that this is an SI policy. Why would they have such a policy? For precisely the reasons gav stated. And if you want to deny it a third time, try looking at my post in which I refuted the original claim that it was never said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know one of the mods said it earlier, because it was me that said it. I even said that SI had asked us to consider bans to be the last resort, so you didn't need to 'easily and correctly assume it was an SI policy'.

'Why would they have such a policy? For precisely the reasons gav stated.' Completely incorrect. You and others are reading into this a meaning that isn't there, so it's you and them that are doing themselves (and SI and the mods) no favours.

The mods were asked to consider banning someone to be the last resort by SI because there had been some inconsistency by the mods in applying the disciplinary guidelines laid out in the House Rules, and that in some cases people were being banned that perhaps should only have a yellow card or post moderation. i.e. that some mods had been using bans as a first resort. At no time have SI said that anyone that deserves to be banned should not be banned. At no time have SI instructed the mods not to ban people in order 'not to alienate the customers'. The whole matter was to do with users being treated equally.

You and Gav have jumped to completely the wrong conclusion.

[Glyn]

And further to that, and Jimbokav's description of the LLM forum - iajafer has hardly banned anybody whilst he's been a mod.

[Jimbokav1971]

I must have jumped to the wrong conclusion too then.

That is slightly hypocritical Glyn.

SI ask the Mods to deal with posters more leniantly in order to give some inconsistency!

I find it ironic that I have never seen someone given a yellow for admitting to using a no cd crack but I have seen no action taken for running multiple accounts.

It would seem at least to me that rather than be consistent with the Mod'ing they have actually gone quite the other way.

[gavnoble]

I would add though Glyn I don't just mean bans.

I mainly mean applying the other punishments below bans, which have not been as forthcoming either, or at least not like they would have been three years ago.

The only logicial conclusion that can be drawn from these punishments not being given out either is that SI are scared of upsetting potential customers, otherwise why would this forum have been allowed to get to the state it is?

I'm not jumping to a conclusion here. As a long term user of both the GQ CM and GQ FM forums I've seen the downward effects of not maintaining the high standards of discipline in the GQ CM Forum in the FM Forums with my own eyes.

By not keeping to these standards when the changeover was made then SI have made a rod for their own back. I'm not going to shift on that viewpoint as you can trace everything back to that point.

[Jimbokav1971]

Originally posted by Glyn:

And further to that, and Jimbokav's description of the LLM forum - iajafer has hardly banned anybody whilst he's been a mod.

Maybe becaus he is so on the ball that thay realise they will get away with nowt after being carded/post moded within seconds of an initial abusive post!

[Seagulls Forever]

Originally posted by Glyn:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Seagulls Forever:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glyn:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gavnoble:

I strongly feel that SI made a rod for their own back in this forum by not being firm enough for fear of alienating customers.

SI have said no such thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glyn, you're doing yourself and SI no favours. Being economical with the truth is not clever. Neither is being rude to forum members as you have been today.

One of the mods earlier in this thread pointed out that banning was defined as a last resort. One can easily and correctly assume that this is an SI policy. Why would they have such a policy? For precisely the reasons gav stated. And if you want to deny it a third time, try looking at my post in which I refuted the original claim that it was never said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know one of the mods said it earlier, because it was me that said it. I even said that SI had asked us to consider bans to be the last resort, so you didn't need to 'easily and correctly assume it was an SI policy'.

'Why would they have such a policy? For precisely the reasons gav stated.' Completely incorrect. You and others are reading into this a meaning that isn't there, so it's you and them that are doing themselves (and SI and the mods) no favours.

The mods were asked to consider banning someone to be the last resort by SI because there had been some inconsistency by the mods in applying the disciplinary guidelines laid out in the House Rules, and that in some cases people were being banned that perhaps should only have a yellow card or post moderation. i.e. that some mods had been using bans as a first resort. At no time have SI said that anyone that deserves to be banned should not be banned. At no time have SI instructed the mods not to ban people in order 'not to alienate the customers'. The whole matter was to do with users being treated equally.

You and Gav have jumped to completely the wrong conclusion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad you finally admit it was stated then. This seems in stark contrast to earlier posts but I'll let that one slide as I'm such a nice guy.

As to reading into the policy something which is not there.. it's quite simple. I have an online community which is based on a similar premise, which is that the forum exists around a service offered by my company. One of the decisions that had to be made early on was how to deal with bad behaviour. My business partner and I had a long and frankly heated discussion about the potential pitfalls of an online community. Banning customers does after all alienate them. It was a close thing and could have gone either way. I think it's a fairly safe bet that similar decision processes would have happened at SI.

Now to the point. Let's just take the assumption for a moment that SI went the opposite way to myself and chose not to ban people who misbehaved as that would alienate them. Would they tell that to the mods? Would that not leave the mods feeling that they were not empowered to do the job properly and were merely part of a money-making enterprise for which they were not paid? I doubt any sensible manager would do so. In truth SI would tell just enough of the truth to get the mods to do their bidding, but not enough to break the illusion of a community.

The truth of the matter is that this is not really a community but simply a means of ensuring customer loyalty (and a bloody effective one at that), and helping to drive word-of-mouth sales. It does its job.

At this point then one has to suggest that you have been treated like a mushroom, and perhaps that is why the anger today.

And by the way you have still failed to explain your rudeness in the "Why not a 1 season demo" thread. That was a clear newbie question and it has been made clear in this thread that experienced members jumping on newbies is a problem. So why is a mod perpetuating that very same problem?

[Jimbokav1971]

Seagulls. Whether I agree with Glyn or not, if you're unhappy with something he has said or done, this thread is not the place for it.

[Glyn]

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

I must have jumped to the wrong conclusion too then.

That is slightly hypocritical Glyn.

SI ask the Mods to deal with posters more leniantly in order to give some inconsistency!

I find it ironic that I have never seen someone given a yellow for admitting to using a no cd crack but I have seen no action taken for running multiple accounts.

It would seem at least to me that rather than be consistent with the Mod'ing they have actually gone quite the other way.

SI didn't ask us to be more lenient, they asked us to be more consistent and apply the disciplinary procedure properly to all users.

Piracy is, and always has been a banning offence. Giving somebody a Yellow Card for it would be exactly the same type of inconsistency that we don't want.

Similarly, multiple accounts are a banning offence. I'm not sure what you (as an 'ordinary' user) would expect to see in the forum as a result of multiple accounts being discovered (and we can only take action once we definitely know that someone has multiple accounts). I know the Thomas Kruuse thing has annoyed people, but in that we've been overruled by SI. Why, I don't know but they must have their reasons and they outrank us.

[Jimbokav1971]

I know the Thomas Kruuse thing has annoyed people, but in that we've been overruled by SI. Why, I don't know but they must have their reasons and they outrank us.

That is my point exactly .

[dafuge]

Originally posted by Glyn:

I know the Thomas Kruuse thing has annoyed people, but in that we've been overruled by SI. Why, I don't know but they must have their reasons and they outrank us.

That's a shame, that whole thing has left a bit of a sour taste in a few peoples mouths which isn't really good for the forum.

[Seagulls Forever]

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

Seagulls. Whether I agree with Glyn or not, if you're unhappy with something he has said or done, this thread is not the place for it.

I of course agree with you here but it is relevant as it's clear that a moderator is going against the very point of this thread in that it's rude and ignorant. I've reported the post though of course it's of dubious effectiveness if the mods are policing the mods.

[Jimbokav1971]

Seagulls. No. The whole point of this thread is to clen up the forum and improve it ffor all users.

Criticising a MOD in any thread is NOT the way forward.

If you want to take it further then email the mods but give it a break will you.

This isn't personal or specific to Glyn or anyone else.

[Ter]

The only logicial conclusion that can be drawn from these punishments not being given out either is that SI are scared of upsetting potential customers, otherwise why would this forum have been allowed to get to the state it is?

It wasn't that at all. The problem was people being banned for more or less nothing.

Rather than banning someone it's often better to use the post moderation option.

Each individual case is different so hopefully there can be a degree of common sense used and have the said user posting again on the forums and learn from whatever mistake they made. I'm all for that.

[Glyn]

Originally posted by Seagulls Forever:

Glad you finally admit it was stated then. This seems in stark contrast to earlier posts but I'll let that one slide as I'm such a nice guy.

What?? I've just said that it was me that stated it in the first place! What I have been denying ever since then is the false deduction by you and others about the reasons for it!! Why are you having a problem understanding this?

As to reading into the policy something which is not there.. it's quite simple. I have an online community which is based on a similar premise, which is that the forum exists around a service offered by my company. One of the decisions that had to be made early on was how to deal with bad behaviour. My business partner and I had a long and frankly heated discussion about the potential pitfalls of an online community. Banning customers does after all alienate them. It was a close thing and could have gone either way. I think it's a fairly safe bet that similar decision processes would have happened at SI.

It is not a safe bet at all. Again you are making mighty big jumps to a conclusion when you have nothing to base it on. What you and your partner do is of absiolutely no relevance here whatsoever.

Now to the point. Let's just take the assumption for a moment that SI went the opposite way to myself and chose not to ban people who misbehaved as that would alienate them. Would they tell that to the mods? Would that not leave the mods feeling that they were not empowered to do the job properly and were merely part of a money-making enterprise for which they were not paid? I doubt any sensible manager would do so. In truth SI would tell just enough of the truth to get the mods to do their bidding, but not enough to break the illusion of a community.

Now, here's the real point. SI completely empower the mods and are very hand-off rearding the day-to-day moderating of the forums. In the instance when they asked us to consider bans to be a last resort, it was as part of a general overview and not with regards to any specifics. Your assumption here is again completely baseless.

The truth of the matter is that this is not really a community but simply a means of ensuring customer loyalty (and a bloody effective one at that), and helping to drive word-of-mouth sales. It does its job.

It's both, actually. You seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive.

At this point then one has to suggest that you have been treated like a mushroom, and perhaps that is why the anger today.

I'm not the mushroom here, it's you that are completely in the dark. You have no idea how things operate behind the scenes here but talk as if you know all about it - making baseless assumptions on scant evidence and then not listening when being told you've got it wrong.

And by the way you have still failed to explain your rudeness in the "Why not a 1 season demo" thread. That was a clear newbie question and it has been made clear in this thread that experienced members jumping on newbies is a problem. So why is a mod perpetuating that very same problem?

The question I posed at the end of my answer in that thread was perfectly reasonable given the question asked. Looking back at it perhaps it can look a bit terse and give the wrong impression. If anybody thinks it was intentionally rude then I'm happy to apologise.

[gavnoble]

Originally posted by Glyn:

SI didn't ask us to be more lenient, they asked us to be more consistent and apply the disciplinary procedure properly to all users.

And that's exactly the crux of the matter - it isn't being applied at all in many cases.

I understand and accept that there are only limited amounts of moderators and that you all do this in addition to regualr jobs etc and for that you all have to be applauded for the time you give up to be in here but increasing the amount of members on the team, particualrly for the FM Forum (as well as assigning a team here) would make a difference, particularly if the disciplinary procedure is applied as has been asked to do.

Right in the opening post Miles said that this forum was now a place they didn't particularly want to come into anymore and while we, the users of the forum have taken some of the blame for that, SI have to acknowledge that they have to shoulder a fair proprotion of the blame as well for the way the forum has degenerated.

That's another reason why I used the phrase rod for their own back in the way I did.

[Glyn]

Originally posted by dafuge:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glyn:

I know the Thomas Kruuse thing has annoyed people, but in that we've been overruled by SI. Why, I don't know but they must have their reasons and they outrank us.

That's a shame, that whole thing has left a bit of a sour taste in a few peoples mouths which isn't really good for the forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, because I think it was me that banned his alias when it was discovered.

[Glyn]

Originally posted by gavnoble:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glyn:

SI didn't ask us to be more lenient, they asked us to be more consistent and apply the disciplinary procedure properly to all users.

And that's exactly the crux of the matter - it isn't being applied at all in many cases.

I understand and accept that there are only limited amounts of moderators and that you all do this in addition to regualr jobs etc and for that you all have to be applauded for the time you give up to be in here but increasing the amount of members on the team, particualrly for the FM Forum (as well as assigning a team here) would make a difference, particularly if the disciplinary procedure is applied as has been asked to do.

Right in the opening post Miles said that this forum was now a place they didn't particularly want to come into anymore and while we, the users of the forum have taken some of the blame for that, SI have to acknowledge that they have to shoulder a fair proprotion of the blame as well for the way the forum has degenerated.

That's another reason why I used the phrase rod for their own back in the way I did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The basic problem is that we're all human. SI, the mods, the users. No matter how much we try it'll never be perfect - all we can do is strive to get there.

[Seagulls Forever]

Oh dear. I think Glyn really should look at his post history. He keeps contradicting himself. Anyway, I think it's fairly clear that those of us who want to make a constructive point here are wasting our time, and that this forum is in fact what most of us probably know it is deep down. It's a business, and therefore the forum is merely a means to an end. Therefore, it lacks the love and polish applied by other forums. Disappointing though when you have it confirmed for you.

[Glyn]

Originally posted by Seagulls Forever:

Oh dear. I think Glyn really should look at his post history. He keeps contradicting himself.

Really? How?

[gavnoble]

I apologise - Miles didn't say it was place they didn't want to come into - he said it was not a nice place to come into, which obviously then leads into not wanting to come here anymore, which is why I don't come here so often anymore either.

Glyn - of course no-ones perfect - that's a given!

Ter - Yes, post modding is an option. I think you can gather though from the thread that people's frustrations have come from seeing people breaking rules on a regular basis and not being given any punishment. From that all we 'people in the dark' can conclude is that SI are scared of alienating customers. If you and Glyn say we are wrong in that then I will hold my hands up and apologise, but surely it does come into SI's thought process along the way?

I'm not in a particularly good mood today due to lack of sleep (my daughter is teething) so I'm quick to say things such as I won't budge on opinions etc purely because I'm shattered and cranky (and I'm a stubborn old sod at the ebst of times anyway!)

[Ter]

I understand and accept that there are only limited amounts of moderators and that you all do this in addition to regualr jobs etc and for that you all have to be applauded for the time you give up to be in here but increasing the amount of members on the team, particualrly for the FM Forum (as well as assigning a team here) would make a difference, particularly if the disciplinary procedure is applied as has been asked to do.

Lately we've been very busy with FM and the FM Live Beta and (especially those on the SI team) haven't had the time to deal with forum matters as much. I think we're all agreed that we need some more moderators around.

Right in the opening post Miles said that this forum was now a place they didn't particularly want to come into anymore and while we, the users of the forum have taken some of the blame for that, SI have to acknowledge that they have to shoulder a fair proprotion of the blame as well for the way the forum has degenerated.

We're not saying the users are to blame. We have to take some responsibility for allowing the forums to go downhill and with this topic and the eventual results from this discussion we're hoping to take steps to put things right.

[FrazT]

Ter- thanks for both those two comments which at least acknowledge that the problems have been shared by both the community in general and the SI guys and Mods. As I have said before, acknowledging that there is a problem and doing something positive to resolve it is much more constructive than trying to find people to blame from both parties.

We all look forward to hearing the outcome of your discussions.

[gavnoble]

Ter - for both comments.

[Ackter]

Originally posted by Glyn:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And by the way you have still failed to explain your rudeness in the "Why not a 1 season demo" thread. That was a clear newbie question and it has been made clear in this thread that experienced members jumping on newbies is a problem. So why is a mod perpetuating that very same problem?

The question I posed at the end of my answer in that thread was perfectly reasonable given the question asked. Looking back at it perhaps it can look a bit terse and give the wrong impression. If anybody thinks it was intentionally rude then I'm happy to apologise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not directed at Glyn, but I'm not sure who he's quoting here:

That thread was posted by Pim, who is not even close to being a new user.

[Seagulls Forever]

Originally posted by Ter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I understand and accept that there are only limited amounts of moderators and that you all do this in addition to regualr jobs etc and for that you all have to be applauded for the time you give up to be in here but increasing the amount of members on the team, particualrly for the FM Forum (as well as assigning a team here) would make a difference, particularly if the disciplinary procedure is applied as has been asked to do.

Lately we've been very busy with FM and the FM Live Beta and (especially those on the SI team) haven't had the time to deal with forum matters as much. I think we're all agreed that we need some more moderators around.

Right in the opening post Miles said that this forum was now a place they didn't particularly want to come into anymore and while we, the users of the forum have taken some of the blame for that, SI have to acknowledge that they have to shoulder a fair proprotion of the blame as well for the way the forum has degenerated.

We're not saying the users are to blame. We have to take some responsibility for allowing the forums to go downhill and with this topic and the eventual results from this discussion we're hoping to take steps to put things right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A note to the mods.. how to set a good example.

[Rashidi]

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

I must have jumped to the wrong conclusion too then.

That is slightly hypocritical Glyn.

SI ask the Mods to deal with posters more leniantly in order to give some inconsistency!

I find it ironic that I have never seen someone given a yellow for admitting to using a no cd crack but I have seen no action taken for running multiple accounts.

It would seem at least to me that rather than be consistent with the Mod'ing they have actually gone quite the other way.

In all fairness mate, treatment of multiple accounts needs considerable thought. With new users it can be quite common, they come in with another alias account because of a multitude of reasons and sometimes these are reasonable. In one particular case, the OP was a noob so I took that into consideration and issued a warning.

In other cases, if we suspect its a way of getting around post-moderation then we take harsher action. You have to credit Glyn and Kris for this, they seem to be able to weed these chaps out pretty fast, something I'm still coming to grips with.

To reiterate we need to be more humane in the application of rules, and there are times the workload gets so intense, we do get rattled and have to be excused for remarks that may appear cold and sometimes rude. I for one am guilty of these. Imagine entering the forums after a string of big meetings at work, not seeing things happen the way you want and someone posts something that is so silly and annoying - it could just flip ya. I know its no excuse we are afterall human and trying to do everyone a service here.

[FrazT]

As we all say about football referees, it is a difficult and thankless task, especially for volunteers. There is no implied or direct criticism of those Mods who do frequent the forums but as has been said before in this thread, the more there are, the less likely for one to get isolated and say something he may regret.

So the moral is- more Mods, especially at busy times.

[Ackter]

Originally posted by rashidi1:

To reiterate we need to be more humane in the application of rules, and there are times the workload gets so intense, we do get rattled and have to be excused for remarks that may appear cold and sometimes rude. I for one am guilty of these. Imagine entering the forums after a string of big meetings at work, not seeing things happen the way you want and someone posts something that is so silly and annoying - it could just flip ya. I know its no excuse we are afterall human and trying to do everyone a service here.

http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/27619697/m/6502087491

[Liam Harper]

There's been a couple of suggestions. As an old(ish)-timer i'd like to throw my 2 cents.

The paid for doesn't work. Being part of the World of Warcraft community proves that. You need an active account (paid) to be able to use their forums and yet those forums are atrocious with the amount of baiting, keylogging, childish remarks etc.

More moderators is a decent idea but then they have to find and make sure they have the right people for the job. A number of people who have been here a while spring to mind.

Allow the challenges back into the main GQ forum. At times they were the lifebread of this forum and with them gone it seems to have lost some of it's "oomph". I can understand why it was done, to tidy up the GQ, but it's just thinned the userbase a bit too much if you ask me.

Make it possible to edit my own posts? No no no, on other forums it's been seen in the past how people have abused other people then quickly edited it. I don't think that would be a good opition.

Also maybe a clampdown by the existing mods. Granted I have hardly been in here over the last 24 months but maybe if people were warned/suspended/banned then it may help to make the others think "hang on a minute".

Reintroducing the paid for e-mails? Definately. Allowing hotmail is and yahoo and such addresses is a mistake as you all know how easy it is to cobble a new e-mail address up on those just to spam or cause havoc. With an email such as virgin, aol etc you might be more inclined to be more careful