Salem

It seems I have some things to clear up after this weekends drama. But firstly I apologize for not being here when it happened, I was busy all weekend so had no time for work.

I am aware that a group of users find my moderators unfair and in certain cases abusing. Now this is not uncommon and whoever moderates and however it is done there will be people that do not agree. Yet I feel the need to clarify certain things for future reference. To make it easier on the eyes I'll do it in a simple Q&A fashion.

Q: Moderators favorize their friends and don't warn/ban them where it is needed.
A: The mods are not allowed to moderate threads where they participate, they leave it to whoever is impartial in the situation. If all mods are involved it goes to me to do the moderation. I often see this accusation being thrown around yet never receive confirmation on where this favorization actually happens.

Q: This user was warned/banned and I don't understand why.
A: The forum is still in somewhat of a beta stage, that means all rules are not yet completed and we're working on our systems to get them up and running. I agree that transparency on decisions could improve and I have added a moderation rule to always include reason in the "User was warned/banned for this post" massage as a direct response to your complaints.

Q: Why are moderators trolling/being mean/acting like normal users?
A: Because they are normal users. When a moderator is not writing in green text then that person is just like anyone else. No special powers, not above any rules, no nothing. That means moderators also go under normal rules when posting non-green so if you feel a rule has been broken simply report the post and I will look at it personally.
To make it super simple (forgive my bluntness, mods) they are an extension of me, five extra pair of eyes, only here to enforce rules. No customer support, no representing SeaTribe/Paradox, nothing else than modding.

Q: Then why have normal users as mods? Why is this forum not run like -insert MMO- forums?
A: Because that is the way it has to be done. This is a small project and there are no funds to have non volunteers as moderators at this stage.

Q: I still don't agree with how things are done.
A: Then bring it up in PM to me or in the rules thread. Spamming it around the forums is considered just that: spam.

Q: The H&H mafia is running Salem! My suggestions and ideas get shot down instantly. The mods and chosen few are conspiring behind my back in the hidden forums!
A: This forum has a rough attitude towards new players and their ideas, yes. Why? Because we have seen them posted countless times. This game has been in development for a long time and SeaTribe have a very set idea on what they want it to be -- end product wise. The simple truth is that suggestions regarding drastic changes in core gameplay will most likely be overlooked by Jorbtar. We can't have too many chefs in this soup, give it time to evolve into what Jorbtar has envisioned and if you still feel the same once the product is launched, then go ahead and suggest changes.
Also, for content ideas: please check if it has been posted before.

Q: Mod X abuses bugs, hacks and is a general meanie.
A: Game is in beta, we want the users to find bugs, hacks and exploits to fix this game. Stax for example is active on the bug tracker and reports everything he finds as far as I know. Once again, game is in beta.

Q: Mod X uses his/her super-powers in-game to get an advantage over normal users.
A: The moderators have no super-powers in-game or out of game. They can simply enforce rules set by me, that is it.

If anyone has any other related question, please ask it here and I will add it to this list. Consider this the megathread to get all rage out and set this situation straight -- then we can return to being happy Salem and kill eachother.

Q: Why are moderators trolling/being mean/acting like normal users?
A: Because they are normal users. When a moderator is not writing in green text then that person is just like anyone else. No special powers, not above any rules, no nothing. That means moderators also go under normal rules when posting non-green so if you feel a rule has been broken simply report the post and I will look at it personally.
To make it super simple (forgive my bluntness, mods) they are an extension of me, five extra pair of eyes, only here to enforce rules. No customer support, no representing SeaTribe/Paradox, nothing else than modding.

Perhaps Moderators should make an "extra account" which is shown up "neutrally",especially for Forums, and which doesnt have much stuff Ingame. Perhaps then we wont see so much whining Threads bout Moderators and that they act or "could act" unfair.

Was a Moderator on another Java Game too, and said the same to Administrators of that Server. They was lucky when they did it

MrGemini wrote:

Q: Why are moderators trolling/being mean/acting like normal users?
A: Because they are normal users. When a moderator is not writing in green text then that person is just like anyone else. No special powers, not above any rules, no nothing. That means moderators also go under normal rules when posting non-green so if you feel a rule has been broken simply report the post and I will look at it personally.
To make it super simple (forgive my bluntness, mods) they are an extension of me, five extra pair of eyes, only here to enforce rules. No customer support, no representing SeaTribe/Paradox, nothing else than modding.

Perhaps Moderators should make an "extra account" which is shown up "neutrally",especially for Forums, and which doesnt have much stuff Ingame. Perhaps then we wont see so much whining Threads bout Moderators and that they act or "could act" unfair.

Was a Moderator on another Java Game too, and said the same to Administrators of that Server. They was lucky when they did it :D

Doing this would just add a layer of deception. I want the moderation to be transparent, not a mysterious organisation where users don't know who is moderating what etc.

TotalyMoo wrote:Doing this would just add a layer of deception. I want the moderation to be transparent, not a mysterious organisation where users don't know who is moderating what etc.

In that case it would seem to make sense not to have as forum mods players who are embroiled with in-game politics. Even if the administrator and the mods see no outright favoritism, there is what is called an optics problem.

On the subject of bannable offenses, my proposal for transparancy is to have a ban thread. Every time a mod bans a player he posts in the thread with the reason for the ban, duration of the ban, evidence of behavior that specifically violates a forum rule. This should not be a thread that any player can post on, so there are no petitions/flame wars. It would be a good way to communicate to the community and if it seems like too much work for the mods who are volunteers, maybe banning a player should take some work.

Vermilioncoyote wrote:

TotalyMoo wrote:Doing this would just add a layer of deception. I want the moderation to be transparent, not a mysterious organisation where users don't know who is moderating what etc.

In that case it would seem to make sense not to have as forum mods players who are embroiled with in-game politics. Even if the administrator and the mods see no outright favoritism, there is what is called an optics problem.

On the subject of bannable offenses, my proposal for transparancy is to have a ban thread. Every time a mod bans a player he posts in the thread with the reason for the ban, duration of the ban, evidence of behavior that specifically violates a forum rule. This should not be a thread that any player can post on, so there are no petitions/flame wars. It would be a good way to communicate to the community and if it seems like too much work for the mods who are volunteers, maybe banning a player should take some work.

Still I am yet to see a case of favoritism to prove such an optics problem. Mods are still not allowed to moderate subjects where they themselves are involved. Stax for example doesn't mod threads he actively participates in.

I like the idea of a ban thread.

Vermilioncoyote wrote:On the subject of bannable offenses, my proposal for transparancy is to have a ban thread. Every time a mod bans a player he posts in the thread with the reason for the ban, duration of the ban, evidence of behavior that specifically violates a forum rule. This should not be a thread that any player can post on, so there are no petitions/flame wars. It would be a good way to communicate to the community and if it seems like too much work for the mods who are volunteers, maybe banning a player should take some work.

To my understanding we already inform all users when an individual has been banned and for what reason. Same for warnings. It is just done in the same thread that the offensive post took place rather than in a centralized location. Would double posting really mean anything to anyone?

TeckXKnight wrote:

Vermilioncoyote wrote:On the subject of bannable offenses, my proposal for transparancy is to have a ban thread. Every time a mod bans a player he posts in the thread with the reason for the ban, duration of the ban, evidence of behavior that specifically violates a forum rule. This should not be a thread that any player can post on, so there are no petitions/flame wars. It would be a good way to communicate to the community and if it seems like too much work for the mods who are volunteers, maybe banning a player should take some work.

To my understanding we already inform all users when an individual has been banned and for what reason. Same for warnings. It is just done in the same thread that the offensive post took place rather than in a centralized location. Would double posting really mean anything to anyone?

We have been pretty bad at showing users what they are banned/warned for to be fair.

Once we get the design of the forum done we could have an automatic system that does all this for us.

TotalyMoo wrote:Once we get the design of the forum done we could have an automatic system that does all this for us.

something like this, hopefully, that doesn't require any extra step for the mods: http://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php

The only problem with moderation is the fact for days **** will be fine then suddenly it's ban worthy. People can **** sling for days without punishment then 1 mod decides it's not ok. It's more of a consistency issue than anything and of course that is going to happen since every person is different but the mod intervention over the last week has just been dumb.

It's the consistency of ***** for me, as well as the context. Everyone can get away with a substandard post now and then, but Jwhitehorn posts like that on a regular basis, and this time it was crass attentionwhoring in a relatively civilized discussion that wasn't about him.

Even so, it's not so much a matter of the post itself, as it is the defiance. If I warn somebody and he deliberately ignores my warning, you can be sure as hell I'll ban him every time. If you think the warning was uncalled for you're supposed to go through the proper channels to contest it (ie PMing Moo or discussing it in the sticky moderation thread), rather than posture in the thread where the warning was issued.