Check out our blog!
Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Macho This is absolutely ridiculous and we should not stand for it

Indiana Jonas

Avatar: 13850 2014-12-19 09:36:26 -0500
13

[At Least I Never M-
ade A Failure Of A-
Website
]

Level 35 Troll

WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WW

I encourage anyone that actually cares about this community to read the following thread.

http://www.forumwarz.com/discussions/view/36011-trolling-in-idc

I will admit that the OP was a bit of an overreaction to a rumored set of rule changes (which I am still convinced is not entirely a work of fiction), but the thread quickly derailed into the mess about what is banable and the edit feature and a slew of arguing.

I am not making this thread to take a particular side just yet, as the argument that happened in the other thread seemed to be going in circles. I do, however, want to bring up the fact that a user was banned for a post that they had already edited to a non-trolling version before any mod had taken action.

This is not a good precedent to set. The edit function exists for this very reason. I know that I have saved myself many times by editing questionable things out of my posts. Are you saying that all these times I was just lucky a mod wasn’t instantly there to catch me? If I were a mod, I would want to encourage people to look over what they had just posted and to utilize the edit function if they felt anything needed changing. Isn’t self-moderation the best kind of moderation?

By letting this ban stick, and even reverting a post to the pre-edit version, you are basically saying that recognizing mistakes in posts is a pointless endeavor, and that you, as a moderation staff, are unwilling to acknowledge any effort a player makes to fix an “inappropriate” post.

It’s about time you started treating us with our best interests in mind, and not your ban-happy sense of what is “right” and “wrong”.

twas

Avatar: 40896 2011-11-01 00:47:59 -0400
15

[fine upstanding member of society]

Level 35 Troll

Wher Have My Poor Imaginary Wife and Child Gone

That is basically what I was trying to say, but I didn’t have the energy for it.

Indiana Jonas

Avatar: 13850 2014-12-19 09:36:26 -0500
13

[At Least I Never M-
ade A Failure Of A-
Website
]

Level 35 Troll

WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WW

Sergeant Cid Posted:

He and Merc both committed a trolling offense. I saw both posts in their original version, and began to respond. My intention was to let both off with a warning. While I was responding, Merc was banned for his trolling act by another Mod. During that time, LHO edited his post. Banning one but not the other would have been unfair. I therefore banned LHO for his trolling, and reverted the original post, to show what he was banned for.

Both players were banned for trolling in the same thread. The fact that one decided to edit his post and the other did not doesn’t change the facts of the original offenses. I based my decision on what I saw, not what it was changed to.

I can honestly say, without a hint of personal emotion, that I quite frankly don’t give a **** what your intent was with those two posters. You admit yourself that LHO edited his post before you were able to even warn him, which clearly indicates his realization that he went over the line, and the steps he took to rectify that. Banning both posters when one tried to fix his post and the other didn’t is the only possible “unfair” outcome from this situation.

The fact that one edited his post and the other didn’t completely changes the facts about the initial offenses. Had you not reverted his post (for whatever reason), anyone that looked at that thread would see merc trolling and getting banned, and LHO making a borderline post refuting the troll. There would have been no issue, and the thread might have gone on on track.

You saw a troll post, but when you went back to ban, and saw it was edited, your reaction should have been “good job LHO for recognizing a trolling post and fixing it yourself”, and not “well i saw trolling before so let me just edit this back for you and ban you for it.”

This is honestly the most ridiculous decision I’ve ever seen on this site, and I’ve been around for quite a few.

Indiana Jonas

Avatar: 13850 2014-12-19 09:36:26 -0500
13

[At Least I Never M-
ade A Failure Of A-
Website
]

Level 35 Troll

WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WW

Sergant Cid Posted:

When I encountered this situation, I saw two posters making trolling posts. Given the choice of banning both or warning both (both choices being equally valid), I decided to be lenient, and made a post to warn both of them. While I was doing so, another Moderator banned one of the two posters I was going to warn. I chose to amend my decision and follow suit with my fellow Moderator, and banned the other poster. This was the most fair option, because punishing one and not the other would have been biased. And our goal is to be fair.

Again, fair would be to let the poster that realized what he posted and tried to fix it remain unbanned, and to ban the poster that trolled for the sake of trolling.

And I hate to run the risk of making this thread about too many topics, but Cid this isn’t the first time you’ve closed a thread when a discussion was still ongoing. I definitely still had a few questions about upcoming rule changes and where things were headed, but your moderation decision and the storm that followed completely derailed the thread. From the tone of the thread, I can only bumume that you got sick of answering questions about your decision and closed the thread for a rather selfish reason. Again, without any personal feelings, it’s your job to answer to the community on why you do things, and having the power to close threads doesn’t mean you just get to use it whenever. I don’t care if you get annoyed by it, it is absolutely part of your job. If the thread was offtrack, say you won’t answer and more questions and leave it open. Closing it just, once again, reeks of you making a poor decision and using your elevated status to bury it.

Edit: Don’t worry there was nothing banable in previous versions of this post, I just forgot to put Cids name in the quote

Indiana Jonas edited this message on 05/28/2009 3:57AM

CrinkzPipe

Avatar: 35643 2015-02-20 21:59:22 -0500
10

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 62 Emo Kid

Hi, I'm an adult whos into bumes. But not boners!

I agree with this thread. He did no banable thing, sure his original post was on the line, but he ****ing edited it.

Another thing, Cid if you are just going to close the thread in the end, why even TRY to start this ****?

If a user asks about a ban just tell them the reason and ignore everything else. Sure it helps out wrongful bans at times(it helped me out once even) but if your going to ARGUE and close a thread because YOU derailed it, then you shouldn’t start it.

CrinkzPipe edited this message on 05/28/2009 4:00AM

Sergeant Cid

MODERATOR
Avatar: 167814 2011-07-31 00:46:27 -0400

[The Airship]

Level 35 Re-Re

Scientifically Proven Terrible fabulous person..... Evidence shows mbumive build up of semen deposit in bum.

This is the thread that I wanted to see, since the original thread’s OP had been addressed and answered. That is why I closed that thread, because the new conversation was a tangent and was also going in circles. And, by the way, HB, I had no problem with your approach in that thread. You had a valid question & concern, and went about it the right way. And, pretty much the same thing here.

I’ve read through your comments here, HB, and I understand your point of view. And I would much rather see self-moderation, because it makes our jobs easier. And the fact that LHO decided to edit his post after making it did factor into my decision.

But take a look at that blue banner up above. Not only does it advise people to ‘be constructive and respectful’, it also reminds them to ’think before you post!’ LHO failed to do both. And I directly witnessed him doing so. Now, he did have second thoughts, and that’s a good thing. But the offense had already been committed. And I had already decided to enact some level of discipline, on both Merc & LHO.

A Moderator witnessing an infraction is just as valid (and in fact, potentially more so) than a post report. And if a post is reported, we have a permanent record in our Mod Forum of that version of the post, even if it is later edited. In fact, we have banned people for pre-edit posts in the past. A number of the ‘IDC Noobs posting Goatse’ bans were enacted that way. Someone tricks them into posting Goatse in the wrong place, it gets reported, and then the Noob panics and tries to edit it to avoid a ban. And they still get banned.

I’m not going to name names as to who likes to pull that IDC prank. But that right there is your precedent for banning someone for a pre-edited post. Once a rules violation post has been reported (or viewed by a Moderator, which is just as valid), then it’s subject to review.

If you edit your post before a Moderator sees it or before it is reported, then we’re probably not going to take action, except in very rare cirgreat timesstances. But once either of those two things happens, it’s definitely subject to review. And this situation is NOT the precedent for ‘banning for a pre-edit post’. That’s been happening for a long time.

As far as the time delay between his post & edit, I didn’t see that at the time. And it still wouldn’t have mattered. I’m not about to set a precedent and say that an edit within 1 minute gets you off the hook but an edit after 5 minutes doesn’t. If we see a potential violation, either with our own eyes or via a report, we’ll make the decision based off of that post, not a re-edit. Otherwise, that just opens the door to letting people post Goatse in Game Discussion for 59 seconds.

Sergeant Cid

MODERATOR
Avatar: 167814 2011-07-31 00:46:27 -0400

[The Airship]

Level 35 Re-Re

Scientifically Proven Terrible fabulous person..... Evidence shows mbumive build up of semen deposit in bum.

Also: Hobart, you make the statement that LHO realized he needed to edit his post, because he realized it was ‘trolling’. But as I look at the timestamps on these events, LHO edited his post after Merc had been banned. Did LHO change his mind through self-initiative, or did he change his mind because he saw a similar post got banned, and was trying to cover his tracks?

And does it really matter? The point of self-moderation should be to do so before you submit the post. That’s what we have the Preview bumon for.

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!