suspend me? I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. If I'm gonna get suspended for being in this thread then I'd rather not be in the thread at all so tell me if that is so and I'll drop it right now. I thought we were actually discussing this and both of those posts did seem off-topic to me.
I never claimed that you were responsible to tell posters why you close threads, I just think you should be. I don't feel that if over five members of a forum(its actually probably more around 15 if i wanted to count in this instance, but its irrelevent) have a issue with a mod closing a thread they should be able to contest it in public. I don't think this is dirty laundry, I think showing this kind of stuff shows forum goers that the forum is just. I think most people would rather have that kind of system then a closed one where a forumer might just disappear and not be able to post for 2 weeks or longer without a mod justifying himself to the community. Being able to appeal to someone else is good, but hidden proceedings and not being able to appeal to the public isn't. I mean why do they have jurys at trials? Sure that is a dramatic comparison, but I think it does show that the community can and should decide what is ok and what is not(within limits of course), not an aristocracy.
Marik_SteeleTo rule in hell...Join Date: 2002-11-20Member: 9466Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Eats+Apr 8 2003, 07:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eats @ Apr 8 2003, 07:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [...]I mean why do they have jurys at trials? Sure that is a dramatic comparison, but I think it does show that the community can and should decide what is ok and what is not(within limits of course), not an aristocracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the understanding that Juries [sp?] made up of peers for trials are instructed not to tell anyone outside of the legal dispute what goes on in the courtroom until the dispute has finished being settled.
If so, then the jury comparison <i>may</i> be an acceptable one for asking mods to state why a person was punished, <i>after</i> the discussions via PM have been finished (regardless of who makes up the "jury"). I contest this argument by agreeing with Spyder: most people don't want to have a reputation hanging about them thanks to a public display in the past when they've had a chance to change since then.
Hehe, eats, I think those posts were on topic, you just didn't understand how they related to the material at hand. Maybe if I phrase what I think they meant in other words...
Discussing a decision or more practically, countermanding it, is severely inflamatory among forums goers.
Also, on you thinking about this forum as public, I would've thought that the Devs and Mods have made it abundantly clear that this place is for enjoyment purposes, to benefit the Natural Selection HL MOD and its community. Wait for it, that means, that this whole thing is a private interest community, so that the Devs benifit and the gamers who play their MOD in return benifit. Anything they see as not benifiting their private interest, they can NUKE that SoB into the next century, and I'll side with them everytime no matter what the little nit picking details were everytime because the proof is in the pudding, and this NS pudding is freaking awesome!
I've never said this to another forum goer, but if you insist on getting all ape on the Devs' or Mods' decisions, I really think you should just leave. I haven't even said that to AllUrHiveBelong2Us, and I can't stand that person's posts most of the time. Oops, there goes this topic being all inflamatory again. I WANT TO SEE THIS THREAD LOCKED ASAP.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> suspend me? I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. If I'm gonna get suspended for being in this thread then I'd rather not be in the thread at all so tell me if that is so and I'll drop it right now. I thought we were actually discussing this and both of those posts did seem off-topic to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you catch the oj trial? Why do you think they have people taking transcripts during trials? it's all public domain and you are allowed to go sit in on just about any trial.
But past that, I only brought up the jury example to point it that it is a judgement by peers, not an aristocracy, and its a system that works well and is much more just then being judged by an aristocracy. So by transitivity would be more just on forums <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Canadian:
I don't think its inflammatory at all. I mean this post doesn't have many flames in it..... I would call it due process. If many members of a forum don't agree with what a mod does they should be able to voice it.
I see what you're saying about Stak's post tho, before i didn't realize his distinction between admin and mod later on. He called the hosters at first BeyondUnreal Admins, then went to singular admin and I didn't read it quite right.
What I get from it is this: When admins make unpopular decisions they get told about it, and they should. Sounds like the admin made a poor decision by firing the mod, and the entire forum disagreed with his decision. Who are you blaming for this? If the admin makes a decision that everyone disagrees with would you not expect that kind of reaction? I'd even bet that board had a policy like this one and that happened despite it. Had that board had the policy I'm suggesting everyone would've expressed their dissent in one thread because no one would be closing it and banning people. Then maybe the admin would reconsider, maybe not. But if he didn't he would justify why so everyone could understand his stance.
I think you're missing the issue I brought up in the first place though. The issue that I brought up was that certain groups of people are being treated differently then other groups, and its clearly not fair. If you want to side with that then go ahead, but thats a messed up view to agree with and, to throw in some hyperbole, is like justifying the holocaust. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
And who's getting ape here? I'm perfectly calm. I mean, you're the one using caps and such. I would call this thread pretty tame right now.
Tell me something. If you go to a party at someone's house, and you decide that you don't like that wall there and start attacking it with a sledgehammer, should it require a majority vote of the people at the party to throw you out? Or should the owner of the house get a say? If the owner decides to throw you out, should he have to explain his reasoning to everyone else?
We, the forum-goers, are guests here. We do not own these forums. We do not pay for their upkeep. Every single word that you post here, every single word that you read, is a fraction of a penny out of someone else's pocket. Think about that for a second. Then start talking about how everything should be democratic and how unjust the mods are. You're like a 15-year-old complaining that his allowance is too low. Comb your hair, get out of the house, get a freaking job. Or, if you don't feel like paying for the forum upkeep, be respectful of those that do, and those that they have appointed to maintain order. If you don't think you can do that, go elsewhere, because you do have that right.
<!--QuoteBegin--Stakhanov+Apr 8 2003, 06:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Apr 8 2003, 06:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but the mods don't want people to leave en masse , <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> theres your quote. and the reason i took the mods side is because they were given the moderator position for a reason. im sure flayra wouldn't allow a tyrannical monster to rein terror over his forums. what would they have to gain from deleting your post (im assuming, again i don't know what happened) for no reason at all? does spydermonkey get a sick thrill for deleting users' posts at whim? i'm pretty sure he doesn't (we will never know,) so i will take his side. and oh no my post is off-topic, somone shoot me in the head! who cares? many, MANY posts on this forum are off-topic, and i don't think that very many people care a lot. other than you and maybe 2 or 3 other people. and i would trust the moderators' side over someone who i don't know at all in pretty much any argument. like spyder said, it is not a democracy, as not everything must <i>be</i> a democracy. its more like supreme dictatorship with a little fairness. at least they let you know why you were banned <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
This is in no way like breaking a wall at a party at someone's house. Please think about that comparison awhile. If you still think its valid then bring it up again and I'll respond to it.
You do get that the forums are a place where people are supposed to discuss ns right? If you read the post that got closed it was about ns and this whole thing is about groups of people getting treated unfairly by the mods. I mean if you wanna be ok with that and try to justify why its ok then fine, but I have no idea why anyone would want to do that.
Sephiroth: The PTs kinda hate the clanners if you've been following this whole thing. It is funny that you then followed up with this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and oh no my post is off-topic, somone shoot me in the head! who cares? many, MANY posts on this forum are off-topic, and i don't think that very many people care a lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The post closed was closed under the pretense that it was off-topic.
Can you guys get off this "the forum is a service and they can do whatever they want" stuff. I'm not arguing its not or that they can't. They could close the forums if they wanted to. I'm merely saying that an alternate system exists which is better and leads to the forum goers getting a better experience out of the forum. But some of you guys seem to be so ingrained in this system that you won't even listen.
I really don't understand you guys. I mean why would you defend the dictatorship form of moderation? Whenever I read these posts I always think about this video I saw once of a muslim woman. They were asking her how she liked not having any rights, and she went on to defend the system of her not having rights and said she liked it. How those rights are for men, woman would mess things up, etc. People just become part of a system it seems and then they resist any type of change tooth and nail, even when it clearly improves their conditions.
I could understand you guys just nodding along and not caring, but to actually come out and defend this system. Why?
I mean I can understand a mod defending it because its easier for him. He doesn't have to be responsible for his actions(within limits of course, but much less stringent limits), but why would standard forum goers defend it?
Regardless of what you might think, this whole "Clanners vs PTs" battle that might exist, is beyond me. I told Flayra, I told Doob, and I'll tell you now... regardless of who it was that acted they way they did, my course of action would have been the same. If a PT had started this crap, he'd be the only playtester with no access to the forums anymore. I stick by my decision, and I'll defend it to the death.
I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing this "Clanners" thing up. I'm not even really sure if I want to be enlightened. I'm the greatest advocate of people having a right to be treated equally in this forum, regardless of who they are, what they do, or where they come from. PMs/Emails/Reported Posts I get are treated with absolutely no thought towards the person reported, the person who reported or the people involved. I've nuked posts from Joe Newbie, and removed posts from DOOManiac. I'd protect your rights to not be verbally bashed the same as I would anyone else. Don't pretend that you know what I was thinking when I suspended and banned the people I did. The honest truth is that I've been a moderator of NS forums much longer than I've been a playtester. When I think of Natural Selection, I always am a moderator first. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I've played NS for pure enjoyment, or read these boards for interesting content. I spend the time I can doing what I love to do... keeping these forums clean, and I shall continue to do so to the best of my ability.
No matter whan anyone says, I do take criticism, and I've made private apologies where necessary to people I've felt that I treated unfairly. I can be talked to rationally by people who are willing to continue those efforts, and though I come off as cold and indifferent, there is a thoughtful, courteous and respectful (to those who don't lose mine) mind behind me.
Rules governing civil behaviour are a good thing to have, but my interest in these forums is fading due to what I perceive as random thread locking. For example, why was "clan scene is dying" locked in General? Interesting thread, no rude behaviour. Then someone steps in, says "this has been discussed enough" and locks the thread. Or worst example, locking this entire forum just because the discussion got a bit uninspired.
Of course the admins have every right to that, they're paying for the bandwidth after all. But these unpredictable decisions are quickly killing my motivation to participate in this forum. Why should I take the time and type a post, when 2 minutes later the thread will be locked with a funny comment and for reasons I don't understand?
I find it ironic that <b>HF|KIR|</b>Spyder Monkey, along with <b>[FoR]</b>Storm and Slappy, <b>[EC|</b>Fam, Freestyler, Comprox<b>]</b> and the other clanning PTs are accused of hating clanners. Not to mention that even MonsE and Flayra earned nukes from Spyder, so calling him biased in that respect is more of a personal insult than anything.
But that's off topic, as you like to say, which brings me to the next point...
In this very thread, where you demand radical democratic rights for the forum, you forbade two members mouths by telling them they're getting off-topic, or that their arguments aren't valid, and took an obviously hypothetical example as threat, which is both not what I'd call 'democratic behaviour'. Do you feel insulted? But this is exactely what you demanded: Being told what you did wrong <i>in front of up to 14651 registered members</i>.
And you didn't even do anything that would've qualified a suspension or ban.
I know what kinds of E-Mails and PMs Spyder got. It's a prove of his great character that he - although in a highly stressful RL situation right now - didn't explode over them. Do you think that we should make threats to his life and his siblings (spoken in jest, but nonetheless) public? Do you think it would benefit these forums to air stuff that only concerns <i>two</i> people - the moderator and the member? Should you feel that the mods won't treat you fairly - protest to Flayra. He owns the boards, there is <i>no</i> higher instance around, and he proved to be neutral in numerous cases.
By the way, originating back to my initial post that apparently started the whole thing - I apologized to Do0bie about the generalization (via PM), he accepted (via PM), we chatted in IRC (via PM), and both parties seem to be content with it.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I come off as cold and indifferent, there is a thoughtful, courteous and respectful (to those who don't lose mine) mind behind me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Should you have wondered, yes, he <i>is</i> talking about his girlfriend <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->[/edit]
I think some people here need a break from the forum
Also you need to learn to go through the right channels when you got a complaint
I got no probs with forum so I am happy with it Why change what is working well enough <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
FieryHaloedBride of SpyderMonkeyJoin Date: 2003-02-23Member: 13884Members
I do not know all that happen and will not pretend that I do, but for all of you people who acted childish and sent HF|KIR|SpyderMonkey PMs, emails, ect., that included comments suggesting that he is unfair and blah blah blah. All I have to say is out of all the people that I have talked to; SpyderMonkey has to be one of the most liked and hated moderators. Liked because he is fair and at least logical when thought unfair and only disliked by those immature people whom he warns/bans/whatever. Not being partial to him because he is my boyfriend but I get to hear all about everything that goes on and if I were put in the same position I would have done the same thing.
Nem, thanks for remembering me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
My god I thought this thread was locked and buried ages ago....
People, forget about your 1st amendment rights, they do **NOT** apply here. The mods are basically benevilant dictators: they will act when they want where they want in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the forum rules. If you believe they are being unfair, go through the regular channels to complain.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really don't understand you guys. I mean why would you defend the dictatorship form of moderation? Whenever I read these posts I always think about this video I saw once of a muslim woman. They were asking her how she liked not having any rights, and she went on to defend the system of her not having rights and said she liked it. How those rights are for men, woman would mess things up, etc. People just become part of a system it seems and then they resist any type of change tooth and nail, even when it clearly improves their conditions.
Wow, so you completly ignore the opinion of the woman there. Did it occur to you that she was doing exactly what you claim to uphold: democracy. It's her choice to say "I don't want change". I could say to the Amish in America that it is clearing in their better interests to adopt modern technology. But it's their choice to reject it. Who am I to say otherwise. And btw, according the Sharia law muslim women have plenty of rights, the entire home is their domain and they can partake in work where all the profit goes straight to them. Any money the man makes must by Sharia law be given to his family. Of course, that's not always the way it works but hey <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Regardless of that, a democratic forum system could and would NOT work. So whenever a thread had to be locked the whole forum votes on it? A democractic system on these forums would lead to absolute and total chaos, people would post whatever the hell they wanted and no-one could stop them. the forums are despotic in nature because it works. Do what you'd do in a despotic situation: obey the laws and don't give authority any reason to beat you up.
Accept the mods for who they are and accept also that they are fair and resonable. If you don't like it, then leave. it's as simple, and authoritarian, as that.
This is in no way like breaking a wall at a party at someone's house. Please think about that comparison awhile. If you still think its valid then bring it up again and I'll respond to it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, I'll explain.
This site and someone's house are similar in that someone must pay for their upkeep.
The party and this forum are similar in that both feature a large number of people enjoying themselves without having to contribute anything to said upkeep. We are all guests here.
For a very large party, the owner of the house might hire bouncers (we'll call them "moderators") to throw out undesirables.
Perhaps breaking down a wall was too strong of an analogy. How about if it's repainting a wall so it's more to your liking? Or putting on music that offends the party host/owner of the house? Or befouling the bathroom? Or getting stinking drunk and vomiting all over the floor?
Even without any of this bad behavior, does the owner of the house have the right to throw you out on the street without first holding a vote? The answer is yes. If your name is not on that lease, you have no right whatsoever to be there unless he is having you as a guest.
If you want to discuss something here that the mods for whatever reason don't want you to discuss (or more likely, you're holding a discussion in a manner unbecoming to these forums), you have the right to go start your own forum, with your own hosting money, and post whatever you please on it. Just like if you get thrown out of the party, you can go throw one of your own. Go have fun now. Buh-bye.
This part of the debate boils down to Private Property , which , to a certain french philosopher , equals theft... <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(/me goes on vacation waiting for the flamming thread to grow huge </span>
It was Russeau, who believed that private property was an effect of the creation of interest groups, which in turn destroyed the peoples unity and will (volonté general).
Russeau was cited by Robespierre, Marx, Lenin, Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin.
Alright, I'll reply to a lot of these later, but right now its ungodly early and I'm tired so I'm gonna answer samwise cause his is easiest.
First off, I do own my own forum <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Further, your whole comparison doesn't work because you are saying a forum is the same as the literal parts of a house when truly a forum is far more like the conversations that take place in that house.
You destroying/changing the literal parts of a house would be like me going into the forum code and changing how it works, because those are the permanent parts and would actually require considerable work to fix. All I am talking about would be the conversations taking place in a house.
Now, when you invite a bunch of friends over for a party do you dictate what people say with an iron fist? Or is it more about what the majority of these likeminded friends of yours want. I'm going to assume its the second because the first is just too strange. Sure, there are limits about what your friends can and can't say and you would throw them out if they went overboard and couldn't follow some basic rules, but that is exactly what I'm saying.
It would be even better to compare it to a meeting that you are holding, because then you have some specifications on what you're talking about, but the conversation is still basically governed not by some small group of people but by all the people at the meeting(within limits once again) whose collective will could be acted out by security if it was needed.
I am not arguing that the owners of the forum don't have the right to do whatever they want with it, just for a better way to control the forum. How many times do I have to say that before people will stop accusing me of thinking it?
Maybe it would be best if you made a short summary about <i>what</i> you're trying to suggest, because the discussion is starting to be so strewn out that it has become difficult to tell.
Comments
I never claimed that you were responsible to tell posters why you close threads, I just think you should be. I don't feel that if over five members of a forum(its actually probably more around 15 if i wanted to count in this instance, but its irrelevent) have a issue with a mod closing a thread they should be able to contest it in public. I don't think this is dirty laundry, I think showing this kind of stuff shows forum goers that the forum is just. I think most people would rather have that kind of system then a closed one where a forumer might just disappear and not be able to post for 2 weeks or longer without a mod justifying himself to the community. Being able to appeal to someone else is good, but hidden proceedings and not being able to appeal to the public isn't. I mean why do they have jurys at trials? Sure that is a dramatic comparison, but I think it does show that the community can and should decide what is ok and what is not(within limits of course), not an aristocracy.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the understanding that Juries [sp?] made up of peers for trials are instructed not to tell anyone outside of the legal dispute what goes on in the courtroom until the dispute has finished being settled.
If so, then the jury comparison <i>may</i> be an acceptable one for asking mods to state why a person was punished, <i>after</i> the discussions via PM have been finished (regardless of who makes up the "jury"). I contest this argument by agreeing with Spyder: most people don't want to have a reputation hanging about them thanks to a public display in the past when they've had a chance to change since then.
Discussing a decision or more practically, countermanding it, is severely inflamatory among forums goers.
Also, on you thinking about this forum as public, I would've thought that the Devs and Mods have made it abundantly clear that this place is for enjoyment purposes, to benefit the Natural Selection HL MOD and its community. Wait for it, that means, that this whole thing is a private interest community, so that the Devs benifit and the gamers who play their MOD in return benifit. Anything they see as not benifiting their private interest, they can NUKE that SoB into the next century, and I'll side with them everytime no matter what the little nit picking details were everytime because the proof is in the pudding, and this NS pudding is freaking awesome!
I've never said this to another forum goer, but if you insist on getting all ape on the Devs' or Mods' decisions, I really think you should just leave. I haven't even said that to AllUrHiveBelong2Us, and I can't stand that person's posts most of the time. Oops, there goes this topic being all inflamatory again. I WANT TO SEE THIS THREAD LOCKED ASAP.
That was hypothetical.
Did you catch the oj trial? Why do you think they have people taking transcripts during trials? it's all public domain and you are allowed to go sit in on just about any trial.
But past that, I only brought up the jury example to point it that it is a judgement by peers, not an aristocracy, and its a system that works well and is much more just then being judged by an aristocracy. So by transitivity would be more just on forums <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Canadian:
I don't think its inflammatory at all. I mean this post doesn't have many flames in it.....
I would call it due process. If many members of a forum don't agree with what a mod does they should be able to voice it.
I see what you're saying about Stak's post tho, before i didn't realize his distinction between admin and mod later on. He called the hosters at first BeyondUnreal Admins, then went to singular admin and I didn't read it quite right.
What I get from it is this:
When admins make unpopular decisions they get told about it, and they should. Sounds like the admin made a poor decision by firing the mod, and the entire forum disagreed with his decision. Who are you blaming for this? If the admin makes a decision that everyone disagrees with would you not expect that kind of reaction? I'd even bet that board had a policy like this one and that happened despite it. Had that board had the policy I'm suggesting everyone would've expressed their dissent in one thread because no one would be closing it and banning people. Then maybe the admin would reconsider, maybe not. But if he didn't he would justify why so everyone could understand his stance.
I think you're missing the issue I brought up in the first place though. The issue that I brought up was that certain groups of people are being treated differently then other groups, and its clearly not fair. If you want to side with that then go ahead, but thats a messed up view to agree with and, to throw in some hyperbole, is like justifying the holocaust. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
And who's getting ape here? I'm perfectly calm. I mean, you're the one using caps and such. I would call this thread pretty tame right now.
We, the forum-goers, are guests here. We do not own these forums. We do not pay for their upkeep. Every single word that you post here, every single word that you read, is a fraction of a penny out of someone else's pocket. Think about that for a second. Then start talking about how everything should be democratic and how unjust the mods are. You're like a 15-year-old complaining that his allowance is too low. Comb your hair, get out of the house, get a freaking job. Or, if you don't feel like paying for the forum upkeep, be respectful of those that do, and those that they have appointed to maintain order. If you don't think you can do that, go elsewhere, because you do have that right.
theres your quote. and the reason i took the mods side is because they were given the moderator position for a reason. im sure flayra wouldn't allow a tyrannical monster to rein terror over his forums. what would they have to gain from deleting your post (im assuming, again i don't know what happened) for no reason at all? does spydermonkey get a sick thrill for deleting users' posts at whim? i'm pretty sure he doesn't (we will never know,) so i will take his side. and oh no my post is off-topic, somone shoot me in the head! who cares? many, MANY posts on this forum are off-topic, and i don't think that very many people care a lot. other than you and maybe 2 or 3 other people. and i would trust the moderators' side over someone who i don't know at all in pretty much any argument. like spyder said, it is not a democracy, as not everything must <i>be</i> a democracy. its more like supreme dictatorship with a little fairness. at least they let you know why you were banned <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
This is in no way like breaking a wall at a party at someone's house. Please think about that comparison awhile. If you still think its valid then bring it up again and I'll respond to it.
You do get that the forums are a place where people are supposed to discuss ns right? If you read the post that got closed it was about ns and this whole thing is about groups of people getting treated unfairly by the mods. I mean if you wanna be ok with that and try to justify why its ok then fine, but I have no idea why anyone would want to do that.
Sephiroth:
The PTs kinda hate the clanners if you've been following this whole thing. It is funny that you then followed up with this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and oh no my post is off-topic, somone shoot me in the head! who cares? many, MANY posts on this forum are off-topic, and i don't think that very many people care a lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The post closed was closed under the pretense that it was off-topic.
Can you guys get off this "the forum is a service and they can do whatever they want" stuff. I'm not arguing its not or that they can't. They could close the forums if they wanted to. I'm merely saying that an alternate system exists which is better and leads to the forum goers getting a better experience out of the forum. But some of you guys seem to be so ingrained in this system that you won't even listen.
I really don't understand you guys. I mean why would you defend the dictatorship form of moderation? Whenever I read these posts I always think about this video I saw once of a muslim woman. They were asking her how she liked not having any rights, and she went on to defend the system of her not having rights and said she liked it. How those rights are for men, woman would mess things up, etc. People just become part of a system it seems and then they resist any type of change tooth and nail, even when it clearly improves their conditions.
I could understand you guys just nodding along and not caring, but to actually come out and defend this system. Why?
I mean I can understand a mod defending it because its easier for him. He doesn't have to be responsible for his actions(within limits of course, but much less stringent limits), but why would standard forum goers defend it?
I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing this "Clanners" thing up. I'm not even really sure if I want to be enlightened. I'm the greatest advocate of people having a right to be treated equally in this forum, regardless of who they are, what they do, or where they come from. PMs/Emails/Reported Posts I get are treated with absolutely no thought towards the person reported, the person who reported or the people involved. I've nuked posts from Joe Newbie, and removed posts from DOOManiac. I'd protect your rights to not be verbally bashed the same as I would anyone else. Don't pretend that you know what I was thinking when I suspended and banned the people I did. The honest truth is that I've been a moderator of NS forums much longer than I've been a playtester. When I think of Natural Selection, I always am a moderator first. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I've played NS for pure enjoyment, or read these boards for interesting content. I spend the time I can doing what I love to do... keeping these forums clean, and I shall continue to do so to the best of my ability.
No matter whan anyone says, I do take criticism, and I've made private apologies where necessary to people I've felt that I treated unfairly. I can be talked to rationally by people who are willing to continue those efforts, and though I come off as cold and indifferent, there is a thoughtful, courteous and respectful (to those who don't lose mine) mind behind me.
***Expanding on ideas.
Rules governing civil behaviour are a good thing to have, but my interest in these forums is fading due to what I perceive as random thread locking. For example, why was "clan scene is dying" locked in General? Interesting thread, no rude behaviour. Then someone steps in, says "this has been discussed enough" and locks the thread. Or worst example, locking this entire forum just because the discussion got a bit uninspired.
Of course the admins have every right to that, they're paying for the bandwidth after all. But these unpredictable decisions are quickly killing my motivation to participate in this forum. Why should I take the time and type a post, when 2 minutes later the thread will be locked with a funny comment and for reasons I don't understand?
But that's off topic, as you like to say, which brings me to the next point...
In this very thread, where you demand radical democratic rights for the forum, you forbade two members mouths by telling them they're getting off-topic, or that their arguments aren't valid, and took an obviously hypothetical example as threat, which is both not what I'd call 'democratic behaviour'.
Do you feel insulted? But this is exactely what you demanded: Being told what you did wrong <i>in front of up to 14651 registered members</i>.
And you didn't even do anything that would've qualified a suspension or ban.
I know what kinds of E-Mails and PMs Spyder got. It's a prove of his great character that he - although in a highly stressful RL situation right now - didn't explode over them. Do you think that we should make threats to his life and his siblings (spoken in jest, but nonetheless) public? Do you think it would benefit these forums to air stuff that only concerns <i>two</i> people - the moderator and the member?
Should you feel that the mods won't treat you fairly - protest to Flayra. He owns the boards, there is <i>no</i> higher instance around, and he proved to be neutral in numerous cases.
By the way, originating back to my initial post that apparently started the whole thing - I apologized to Do0bie about the generalization (via PM), he accepted (via PM), we chatted in IRC (via PM), and both parties seem to be content with it.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I come off as cold and indifferent, there is a thoughtful, courteous and respectful (to those who don't lose mine) mind behind me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Should you have wondered, yes, he <i>is</i> talking about his girlfriend <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->[/edit]
Also you need to learn to go through the right channels when you got a complaint
I got no probs with forum so I am happy with it
Why change what is working well enough <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Nem, thanks for remembering me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
People, forget about your 1st amendment rights, they do **NOT** apply here. The mods are basically benevilant dictators: they will act when they want where they want in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the forum rules. If you believe they are being unfair, go through the regular channels to complain.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really don't understand you guys. I mean why would you defend the dictatorship form of moderation? Whenever I read these posts I always think about this video I saw once of a muslim woman. They were asking her how she liked not having any rights, and she went on to defend the system of her not having rights and said she liked it. How those rights are for men, woman would mess things up, etc. People just become part of a system it seems and then they resist any type of change tooth and nail, even when it clearly improves their conditions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, so you completly ignore the opinion of the woman there. Did it occur to you that she was doing exactly what you claim to uphold: democracy. It's her choice to say "I don't want change". I could say to the Amish in America that it is clearing in their better interests to adopt modern technology. But it's their choice to reject it. Who am I to say otherwise. And btw, according the Sharia law muslim women have plenty of rights, the entire home is their domain and they can partake in work where all the profit goes straight to them. Any money the man makes must by Sharia law be given to his family. Of course, that's not always the way it works but hey <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Regardless of that, a democratic forum system could and would NOT work. So whenever a thread had to be locked the whole forum votes on it? A democractic system on these forums would lead to absolute and total chaos, people would post whatever the hell they wanted and no-one could stop them. the forums are despotic in nature because it works. Do what you'd do in a despotic situation: obey the laws and don't give authority any reason to beat you up.
Accept the mods for who they are and accept also that they are fair and resonable. If you don't like it, then leave. it's as simple, and authoritarian, as that.
This is in no way like breaking a wall at a party at someone's house. Please think about that comparison awhile. If you still think its valid then bring it up again and I'll respond to it.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, I'll explain.
This site and someone's house are similar in that someone must pay for their upkeep.
The party and this forum are similar in that both feature a large number of people enjoying themselves without having to contribute anything to said upkeep. We are all guests here.
For a very large party, the owner of the house might hire bouncers (we'll call them "moderators") to throw out undesirables.
Perhaps breaking down a wall was too strong of an analogy. How about if it's repainting a wall so it's more to your liking? Or putting on music that offends the party host/owner of the house? Or befouling the bathroom? Or getting stinking drunk and vomiting all over the floor?
Even without any of this bad behavior, does the owner of the house have the right to throw you out on the street without first holding a vote? The answer is yes. If your name is not on that lease, you have no right whatsoever to be there unless he is having you as a guest.
If you want to discuss something here that the mods for whatever reason don't want you to discuss (or more likely, you're holding a discussion in a manner unbecoming to these forums), you have the right to go start your own forum, with your own hosting money, and post whatever you please on it. Just like if you get thrown out of the party, you can go throw one of your own. Go have fun now. Buh-bye.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(/me goes on vacation waiting for the flamming thread to grow huge </span>
Russeau was cited by Robespierre, Marx, Lenin, Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin.
He was never as funny as Marx, but then he didn't have a cigar.
First off, I do own my own forum <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Further, your whole comparison doesn't work because you are saying a forum is the same as the literal parts of a house when truly a forum is far more like the conversations that take place in that house.
You destroying/changing the literal parts of a house would be like me going into the forum code and changing how it works, because those are the permanent parts and would actually require considerable work to fix. All I am talking about would be the conversations taking place in a house.
Now, when you invite a bunch of friends over for a party do you dictate what people say with an iron fist? Or is it more about what the majority of these likeminded friends of yours want. I'm going to assume its the second because the first is just too strange. Sure, there are limits about what your friends can and can't say and you would throw them out if they went overboard and couldn't follow some basic rules, but that is exactly what I'm saying.
It would be even better to compare it to a meeting that you are holding, because then you have some specifications on what you're talking about, but the conversation is still basically governed not by some small group of people but by all the people at the meeting(within limits once again) whose collective will could be acted out by security if it was needed.
I am not arguing that the owners of the forum don't have the right to do whatever they want with it, just for a better way to control the forum. How many times do I have to say that before people will stop accusing me of thinking it?