Well the mods do suck. But thats because people suck in general. The internet tends to drain your faith in humanity and forums are second only to MMO's in making you hate people. Complaining about the mods never goes anywhere. The burden of proof is on the accuser and in general people are better at talking about nothing than talking about anything of relevance or substance.
Well the mods do suck. But thats because people suck in general. The internet tends to drain your faith in humanity and forums are second only to MMO's in making you hate people. Complaining about the mods never goes anywhere. The burden of proof is on the accuser and in general people are better at talking about nothing than talking about anything of relevance or substance.
Amen to MMO's making you hate people. On that note, I play WoW. And I just wanted to point out that the mods here have nothing on an over-eager power hungry guild master or Raid leader. At least our discussions aren't on ventrilo, where the "mods", for the sake of this argument, incessantly (and irreverently) flame you when you don't even do something wrong. I'd say feeling like a mod is "power-hungry" (which most cases I do not) is a fair trade to the complete degradation of rules and order whatsoever. At least we don't have to hear the mods and person, and likewise, they don't have to hear us.
Amen to MMO's making you hate people. On that note, I play WoW. And I just wanted to point out that the mods here have nothing on an over-eager power hungry guild master or Raid leader. At least our discussions aren't on ventrilo, where the "mods", for the sake of this argument, incessantly (and irreverently) flame you when you don't even do something wrong. I'd say feeling like a mod is "power-hungry" (which most cases I do not) is a fair trade to the complete degradation of rules and order whatsoever. At least we don't have to hear the mods and person, and likewise, they don't have to hear us.
At the risk of driving this further off topic, Irecently stepped down from raiding in WoW, to go for PvP. Granted it can be just as frustrating, but at least you can do it on your own terms. I used to be rather mild mannered and laid back towards people online and would just chat on MSN or in chat rooms. After being on forums and playing WoW, I can definitely say I'm far more hateful (possibly embittered) and my patience runs severely short with assclowns.
Anyway, to be more on topic, I'm thankful we have the mods we do here to make communities as large a mostly smooth ride. It's not atypical of communities this large to feel rather impersonal, but despite how much MTGS has grown since it's inception, it still feels like a home, in the virtual sense. So, consider this a thank you to the mods for not succumbing to the chaos that is internet anonymity.
every board has people complain about moderators. even the board i moderate people complain.
although it has gotten a lot better since we have the new board software installed.
people will always complain about moderators. more so when they get in trouble.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I love the fact that Moderators enforce rules. That's their job. The internet is chaos and if left alone, this place would die faster than you can "click here for free boner pills!!!"
A truthful statement, but with provisions.
I've been a mod on 1000+ user forums before. I've been in a leadership position in a few online communities. If you're to the point where you enforce rules simply by virtue of their existence, while not paying mind to the context of that rule and it's reason for existence, you've failed as a moderator and a leader.
I've been subject to, and seen, plenty of such moderation here. I'm not going to waste my time digging up examples, because being a forum moderator often instill a sense of "If you don't like it, leave". One would be hard pressed to find any situation where any kind of 'Reform' has successfully occurred in a setting like this, aside from one to two people losing mod privileges.
Further, I've personally had posts REMOVED. Not because they were offensive, or violated some kind of ethical code, but because they didn't exactly fit in to the topic being discussed. This is wrong. Flagging posts is one thing, but deleting something I said because it was slightly off-topic? That kind of action begins to move into an entirely worse, far more sinister realm of control. Even being a Forum Administrator, i've never felt I had the right to do that, save for extreme situations. Censoring of specific words via random character replacement? That's one thing. Deleting entire posts, as though that person never said what they said? Attempt to view that in a more real-life context. It's disturbing. Do not claim your forum is a public discussion place, and then fully censor the opinions of the public.
The 3-Warning and you're on a timeout system here, while it may seem fine, suggest that after 3 rules violations, you've become a hindrance or a detriment to the community. If I can get a month ban because I accidentally double post without realizing it (i.e. browser posts it twice), as well as make an offhanded 5-word remark about the availability of a card in a 4 paragraph post, followed by accidentally forgetting a deck tag, all within the course of a weekend, then that's rule enforcement without consideration of the context. This is like saying "If you get 3 parking tickets, you go to jail for a month".
Rules should be enforced on a BANNING level when the rules violated/actions committed actually impacted the community. Not because 3 random people noticed 3 separate editorial mistakes. And for the record, the aforementioned situation, more or less, happened to me. Here. Additionally, I did send a message explaining myself in each separate occasion, and asking for it to be appealed to someone in a higher position. I was told it would be, and never heard back again. Not much of an appeal process if the master IN pile is a garbage can.
Don't misunderstand me. I understand the need for strict rule enforcement. But like I said, I've seen some that seemed to be purely "Rules being enforced purely by virtue of their existence."
Being a moderator is a serious responsibility. You cannot address things nonchalantly, and you cannot address them in an over-serious manner, either. Extremes are traditionally wrong in, well, human life. If you want to remain in control of a community, you essentially have two options: Make them afraid to cross you, or make them respect your authority. Fear may carry the illusion of respect, but it is NOT respect.
I do not apply this series of statements as a catch-all. I am not ignorant enough to pose the supposition that all, or any, admins on this forum are corrupt. I'm suggesting, moreover, that there are too many situations where 'catch-all' rule enforcement is occurring, while in some cases, context and validity of that rule enforcement is being overlooked.
I admit the mistakes i've made in my time here that have gotten me warnings WERE my fault, but I certainly do not feel that most, if any, of them deserved temporary bans over. Then again, that's just my opinion, and I neither own, maintain, or operate these forums.
I hope I've explained my points in a way that's both decipherable and respectful.
The 3-Warning and you're on a timeout system here, while it may seem fine, suggest that after 3 rules violations, you've become a hindrance or a detriment to the community. If I can get a month ban because I accidentally double post without realizing it (i.e. browser posts it twice), as well as make an offhanded 5-word remark about the availability of a card in a 4 paragraph post, followed by accidentally forgetting a deck tag, all within the course of a weekend, then that's rule enforcement without consideration of the context. This is like saying "If you get 3 parking tickets, you go to jail for a month".
The unfortunate part is that your long-winded rant (and the part I quoted in particular) only shows that you don't understand the rules here that you're complaining about, and that you failed to read the thread's topic at all - homing in on the thread's actual point that most of the people complaining about moderators are complaining about imagined slights, and they'd be better served making sure they understand how the forum works rather than starting threads to complain about how horrible everyone is. :/
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
I've been subject to, and seen, plenty of such moderation here. I'm not going to waste my time digging up examples, because being a forum moderator often instill a sense of "If you don't like it, leave". One would be hard pressed to find any situation where any kind of 'Reform' has successfully occurred in a setting like this, aside from one to two people losing mod privileges.
And as I said earlier, I'm personally much less apt to treat a complaint seriously if the accuser can only say "Oh, I've seen many examples of poor moderation here. But I'm not going to bother backing that up."
I'm far more apt to just disregard the point since if the accuser isn't taking it seriously, how can I be expected to?
Further, I've personally had posts REMOVED. Not because they were offensive, or violated some kind of ethical code, but because they didn't exactly fit in to the topic being discussed. This is wrong. Flagging posts is one thing, but deleting something I said because it was slightly off-topic? That kind of action begins to move into an entirely worse, far more sinister realm of control.
If your post was deleted, it was worse than just 'slightly off-topic'. Yes, we delete posts. We delete a lot of them in fact. The truth of the matter is that there are a great swell of posters here who don't even put the minimal amount of thought/effort into their posts, yielding far too many posts that are not up to par. Given the unfathomably high number of such posts, we as a staff cannot (particularly in the Rumor Mill) moderate all of these posts. So we moderate the worst or most constant offenders, and delete the borderline as needed to clean up threads.
The continued existence of some fairly facepalm-worthy posts around here should give you an indication of just how low a post's quality has to be before we delete it.
Of course, the other reason we delete posts is that letting them remain after moderating (as in, warning or infracting them) causes more harm than good. I may infract a particularly nasty flame post and decide that though our usual policy to leave the offending post with a modtext note, leaving it will only serve to further upset other posters and disrupt the thread. Or if a particularly off-topic rant about mythic rarity in the Rulings forum is warned for spam and then deleted since it still represents a disruption to the thread it's in.
Do not claim your forum is a public discussion place, and then fully censor the opinions of the public.
It's public-ish in that anyone can join. But in fact, this forum is more of a private entity than anything else. Members are expected to play by our rules. Most do (even with the odd slip-up), but the ones that don't are dealt with. Users who feel they're entitled to say whatever they want because of Free Speech are in for a rude awakening.
The 3-Warning and you're on a timeout system here, while it may seem fine, suggest that after 3 rules violations, you've become a hindrance or a detriment to the community.
No, three active infractions implies that you've consistently failed to read and/or follow our rules after being warned to do so. Of course, I get the implication that you don't understand our warning/infraction/suspension system given that you're trying to say it only takes three rules violations to receive a suspension.
If I can get a month ban because I accidentally double post without realizing it (i.e. browser posts it twice), as well as make an offhanded 5-word remark about the availability of a card in a 4 paragraph post, followed by accidentally forgetting a deck tag, all within the course of a weekend, then that's rule enforcement without consideration of the context. This is like saying "If you get 3 parking tickets, you go to jail for a month".
No. First of all, that's not how things work here. If a browser screw-up doubles a post, it's obvious and the staff tends to not punish for it unless the user in question somehow handles the situation terribly. As far as the other two, yes, they would likely result in a warning each if they were both first offenses. But that only yields two warnings (0 points since a warning is only worth 0 points each) over a weekend, not even close to the standard for suspension (which would be 3 points) since this hypothetical poster hasn't been infracted yet (an active infraction, essentially a second-level punishment reserved for when a user has already been warned for a particular rule in the past, is worth 1 point as long as it's active).
In your example, this poster wouldn't be suspended. It would take a few more spammy posts after the warning, probably another post without deck tags, before he'd have 3 points. At that point, he'd have a couple warnings and three infractions in a weekend. If you can't see why that's problematic behavior, I can't help you.
We accept that people make mistakes, we all do from time to time. That's why our rules are setup as such to promote second chances and learning from mistakes and suspensions are reserved for those who have shown that they haven't learned from their past mistakes.
Rules should be enforced on a BANNING level when the rules violated/actions committed actually impacted the community. Not because 3 random people noticed 3 separate editorial mistakes.
I think your complaints here would resonate more if you understood how our rules actually work.
And for the record, the aforementioned situation, more or less, happened to me. Here.
No it didn't. You clearly evaded the censor and were warned for it and you posted a wildly off-topic rant about mythic rarity in a Rulings thread about Comet Storm and were warned. Both cases were clear-cut and handled appropriately. And you're still in no danger of being suspended as a result of those two warnings.
As a sort of sidenote here, and for future reference to those who may want to complain about the staff down the road, don't misrepresent your warning/infraction history as a means to engender sympathy to your argument. I'm not sure that was the case here, but this reply is leading me to bring this up now, because it'll likely come up again.
I mean, if during the course of an argument about the conduct of the staff, you try and say that you got an infraction for flaming because a mod was biased and unfair and blew a joke out of proportion, I'm going to investigate your claim. And when I find out that the mod was completely reasonable because your 'joke' was "lol, suck it up you stupid loser, you can't make a deck for ☺☺☺☺. go back to your mother's basement and cry about it", I'm going to completely blow you out of the water. Because if there is one thing I have little tolerance for, it's a user dragging a good mod through the mud because the user has a tantrum over a reasonable moderation and is trying to get the community to side with him.
Again, Darthbone, this wasn't directed at you. It's just something writing this reply dredged up that I felt the need to say since it does typically come up at least once each time we discuss the staff.
Woapalanne is right. The number of users that clearly didn't bother to read the OP or title carefully before posting on this thread is simply appalling.
I agree that alot of complainers conduct their business voicing their concerns totally ineptly, but I also agree that some mods are beuracratic to the the hair on their teeth. Red text in a post? Cmon...
I agree that alot of complainers conduct their business voicing their concerns totally ineptly, but I also agree that some mods are beuracratic to the the hair on their teeth. Red text in a post? Cmon...
Do you mean the practice of leaving mod text in a post to let people know that an element(s) of that post was unacceptable? Or the reservation of bold red text for mod use only?
Yea, that whole rule put in place so the use of any red, bold text that jumps out to drive a point for whatever reason, is prohibited because it's use will threaten to start the decay of order, structure and morals of the entire community.
Exactly that, glad we're on the same page
It's no biggy if you dont like asshats calling each other "SUPR DUM FART HEDS" and drop the hammer on them, or prevent the use of OBNOXIOUSLY LARGE TEXT FOR NO REASON, but really, I think order could be maintained without the use of indiscriminate, nit picking, to the teeth power grabs/exemplifications. Order can be maintained without the use of stringent scrutiny you know
Plus mods wouldn't have to waste time dealing with half of the meaningless things they doll out warning for. A reminder works in a post. Hey man, use correct deck tagging, or we use that text so could ya refrain from that? Instead of seeing warning, and infractions, and all this "official" crap in your PMs. It kind feels like having a cop show up to your door almost because you didn't park perfectly center and/or close enough to the curb. It's pretty excessive. I think a good ammount of reasonable and mature mods whom are open to thoughts and ideas would do just as well, if not better than a squad of mods that crack down on every little nuance that starts to suggest the decay of a community.
Hell, given human nature and whatnot i'm sure someone will find something wrong with this post and toss me some sort of punishment for suggesting various mods should cut their crap. Hell it's just like working for a city/state, unless your above someone, everything you say or suggest to a superior that is contrary to their ideas and beliefs is wrong, and in some cases punishable because they got butt hurt by your ideals.
A reminder works in a post. Hey man, use correct deck tagging, or we use that text so could ya refrain from that? Instead of seeing warning, and infractions, and all this "official" crap in your PMs.
And if there is no official reminder, how are mods supposed to know when you ignore it and keep doing it? No, you get a warning. If you don't want a warning, read the rules. If you don't read the rules, then you don't have any room to complain about warnings.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
Yea, that whole rule put in place so the use of any red, bold text that jumps out to drive a point for whatever reason, is prohibited because it's use will threaten to start the decay of order, structure and morals of the entire community.
Strawman argument.
That text is reserved so that people know it's a mod edit. No mod edit in a post, which would signify that the post was looked at, can mean people reporting the post several times over because they don't know if the mod has seen it.
I think order could be maintained without the use of indiscriminate, nit picking, to the teeth power grabs/exemplifications. Order can be maintained without the use of stringent scrutiny you know
Would you mind giving examples of this 'indiscriminate, nit picking, to the teeth power grabs/exemplifications.'
Plus mods wouldn't have to waste time dealing with half of the meaningless things they doll out warning for. A reminder works in a post. Hey man, use correct deck tagging, or we use that text so could ya refrain from that?
It kind feels like having a cop show up to your door almost because you didn't park perfectly center and/or close enough to the curb. It's pretty excessive. I think a good ammount of reasonable and mature mods whom are open to thoughts and ideas would do just as well, if not better than a squad of mods that crack down on every little nuance that starts to suggest the decay of a community.
Hell, given human nature and whatnot i'm sure someone will find something wrong with this post and toss me some sort of punishment for suggesting various mods should cut their crap. Hell it's just like working for a city/state, unless your above someone, everything you say or suggest to a superior that is contrary to their ideas and beliefs is wrong, and in some cases punishable because they got butt hurt by your ideals.
You would do well to stop needlessly painting yourself as a victim. It bogs the conversation down with triviality, instead of discussing the heart of the matter.
Further, I've personally had posts REMOVED. Not because they were offensive, or violated some kind of ethical code, but because they didn't exactly fit in to the topic being discussed. This is wrong. Flagging posts is one thing, but deleting something I said because it was slightly off-topic? That kind of action begins to move into an entirely worse, far more sinister realm of control.
This isn't 'a sinister realm of control', it's preventing future posts that are off-topic.
You are, however, correct that 'flagging posts is one thing', but if a post is deleted, chances are it's more than 'slightly' off-topic.
That text is reserved so that people know it's a mod edit. No mod edit in a post, which would signify that the post was looked at, can mean people reporting the post several times over because they don't know if the mod has seen it.
Would you mind giving examples of this 'indiscriminate, nit picking, to the teeth power grabs/exemplifications.'
That's one of the purposes of mod text.
It depends on that the user did to warrant a warning/infraction.
That's quite an exaggerated analogy.
You would do well to stop needlessly painting yourself as a victim. It bogs the conversation down with triviality, instead of discussing the heart of the matter.
The heart of the matter is, and i'm sure a large, if not majorital (<--- I just made that work up, sweet) percentage of the people on this site would agree that it's just inane some of the things people get "officially" slapped on the wrist for doing. As for the rules reading, I doubt many people do read them to begin with, hell i'm sure many mods when they signed up for their first post didn't read the rules until they got more involved in the community. It's like legislation, how many people actually read the health care reforms racing through congress, word for word? They just aren't interested, regular folk believe civil conduct and a system that exercises humanity and lenience, like in common social situations, will suffice.
If a mod edited a post, shouldn't the last edited by thing show up with the mod's name?
An example? Dolling out infractions for a post in the wrong area or hell even the mod text violations. Let's be human, ya know? The most favored police are the one's with humanity, they also tend to stay on the force longer and make better money and have more leniency with the public's scrutiny and opinion on their actions.
I think it's important to realize that these mod's are people like me and other's, going through the same grinds of life as we are. They just donate their time and effort to the site and try to maintain order in whichever way. I personally believe, given my experiences here, that some moderation should just be left in a more casual and friendly manner. The message gets across, takes virtually the same amount of time and it improves the mod's reputation amongst the community.
There's a great community here and lurking through the forums and reading various articles has improved my game greatly. Hell i've gone from 12-8th place finishes out of 30 or so to 5th-1st after lurking about, it just seems alot of people feel the same sting of violating some rule put in place for the ease of the moderators. I've been to no forums in my experience and ever had to deal with red text rule and moderators were able to edit posts and get their points across.
Don't think what I type is out of personnel butt hurt, the internet is an angry, cruel mistress of a place and i'm numb to all sort of insult/injury. Hell, i'm not worried about not being able to access the forums or anything either cause i'll always have an account regardless of what stupid things I may do to get one banned. It's just observations on how moderators could approach the public and moderation in general.
Less black and white and more grey. I'd rather speak with other humans online instead of conditioned, formal friends. I do enough censoring myself at work dealing with suits.
The heart of the matter is, and i'm sure a large, if not majorital (<--- I just made that work up, sweet) percentage of the people on this site would agree that it's just inane some of the things people get "officially" slapped on the wrist for doing.
Large majority? Considering the people who have made threads here venting and complaining about the mods because they got infracted for something they almost certainly deserved, I'd argue that the people who complain are in the very small minority, not the majority.
As for the rules reading, I doubt many people do read them to begin with, hell i'm sure many mods when they signed up for their first post didn't read the rules until they got more involved in the community. It's like legislation, how many people actually read the health care reforms racing through congress, word for word? They just aren't interested, regular folk believe civil conduct and a system that exercises humanity and lenience, like in common social situations, will suffice.
This is a very poor analogy, as the forum rules are not a 2000+ page health care reform bill. It's more apt to compare the forum rules to something much more simple, such as traffic laws. Just because you didn't read the rules doesn't mean you should be exempt from them.
If a mod edited a post, shouldn't the last edited by thing show up with the mod's name?
Yes, it will show up.
An example? Dolling out infractions for a post in the wrong area or hell even the mod text violations. Let's be human, ya know? The most favored police are the one's with humanity, they also tend to stay on the force longer and make better money and have more leniency with the public's scrutiny and opinion on their actions.
Posting in the wrong area is usually met with warnings at first. I've only seen people really get infracted for such a thing when it's a repeat offense, or if the mods decide themselves to crack down on such a thing.
Also, regarding mod text:
Quote from Forum rules »
Also, do not edit your post after a mod has done so. Doing so will result in another Infraction being given.
The rules clearly state you shouldn't edit your post after a mod has done it, so what's the big deal here?
I think it's important to realize that these mod's are people like me and other's, going through the same grinds of life as we are. They just donate their time and effort to the site and try to maintain order in whichever way. I personally believe, given my experiences here, that some moderation should just be left in a more casual and friendly manner. The message gets across, takes virtually the same amount of time and it improves the mod's reputation amongst the community.
The moderation here is at a higher standard than most forums, yes. That's a good thing, because otherwise you would have to deal with all sorts of garbage that you would usually find on other forums that are much more lenient.
However, the mods here aren't really that bad at all. If you want to see real draconian modship, go to The Source or TheManaDrain.
The heart of the matter is, and i'm sure a large, if not majorital (<--- I just made that work up, sweet) percentage of the people on this site would agree that it's just inane some of the things people get "officially" slapped on the wrist for doing. As for the rules reading, I doubt many people do read them to begin with, hell i'm sure many mods when they signed up for their first post didn't read the rules until they got more involved in the community. It's like legislation, how many people actually read the health care reforms racing through congress, word for word? They just aren't interested, regular folk believe civil conduct and a system that exercises humanity and lenience, like in common social situations, will suffice.
You'll notice though, that just because you don't read legislation doesn't mean you are exempt from following it once it gets passed.
Also, if you don't read the rules, you really have no right to complain. It's like going to another country and breaking a law there, you don't let go just because you didn't know about it. If you don't take the time to read the rules you deal with the consequences.
Maybe I'm strange in that I ACTUALLY read the rules post before my first post because it says you are supposed to do so. It's not like you get an infraction for one rules violation anyway and most mods are pretty nice when you actually contact them via PM or the helpdesk instead of berating them in front of everyone in this subforum which is usually where all this mod-drama comes from.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTG Rules Advisor
I currently play only two formats, what I play in them is:
Legacy: Domain Zoo, RGW Zoo, Merfolk, Solidarity, Mono Black Aggro
EDH: Kagemaro, First to Suffer
This site, 'Salvation, has been around for five years. The community (which migrated from MTGNews) has been around for 10+. That's 10 years for us to figure out what rules are needed and what levels of moderation are needed. 5 years at this particular site with these particular members. And we constantly check to make sure we're not being over-sensitive.
In contrast, many of the people who complain have been here for a year or less.
I've noticed that MTGS is much more heavily moderated than other forums I've lurked (I'm not much into posting), but that's not entirely a bad thing. MTGS is also one of the less spammy and more professional forums out there.
Occassionally a Mod is a little overzealous, I personally got a warning for something I disagreed with, but these things have to be taken in stride. I've also had Mods edit my posts and fix decklists and card links with no warning/infraction issued, since I obviously have little experience with such things.
So yea, I can see where the complaints are coming from, but that's to be expected when people migrate to a better regulated forum.
I think the mods do a fantastic job, usually above and beyond the call of duty, when they keep threads on track and the like. When Rancored_Elf's card value thread starts talking about strategy and a mod comes in and gets it back on track, that's golden.
What some fail at, quite dismally in fact, is allowing their opinion to dictate how a thread should continue and then the sheer audacity of closing threads. There are a very few who are like this and in fact I can only think of one mod in particular who is guilty of this arrogant approach to moderating.
Visit the speculation forum, and you'll find mods jump in and end threads they "feel" are not worthy of speculation.
I think the mods do a fantastic job, usually above and beyond the call of duty, when they keep threads on track and the like. When Rancored_Elf's card value thread starts talking about strategy and a mod comes in and gets it back on track, that's golden.
What some fail at, quite dismally in fact, is allowing their opinion to dictate how a thread should continue and then the sheer audacity of closing threads. There are a very few who are like this and in fact I can only think of one mod in particular who is guilty of this arrogant approach to moderating.
Visit the speculation forum, and you'll find mods jump in and end threads they "feel" are not worthy of speculation.
Moderation is not a playground for your opinion.
Closing threads that have no basis in reality is not the same as closing threads we don't like. Just because someone thinks "It would be cool if..." doesn't mean that the thought is legitimate speculation.
Jethier: The Speculation sub-section is quickly filled with evidentless material that serves no purpose to the Magic storyline or the forum as a whole.
A person may find it cool, but fifty other people will not.
I think the majority of the complaints regarding the mods are unmerited. The complaints that make sense seem to always be voiced by people who can't present their points with cool heads, and that will get them nowhere not only in Mtgsalvation, but also in the outside world.
While it is true that a great deal of people are dissatisfied with the forum, this number should be put in perspective. Mtgsalvation is a large forum compared to the forums that I have visited.
For that reason, it's important that Mtgsalvation stay organized. People shouldn't be allowed to post whatever they want wherever they want. I think the moderators do a good job of this. Though I was initially dissatisfied with Mtgsalvation because I received a near four infractions in my starting week here on this forum, I manned up and learned how this forum works, just like every senior and frequent member on this forum (I belong to the latter, of course.)
However, I do have some complaints, which I think is the reason this forum was made, though the cause for this forum should not be for the "fed up" people because the "fed up" people rarely intelligently express their grievances.
The complaints, or rather complaint, is as follows:
I. This forum isn't terribly good to budget decks. In my humble opinion, there are just too few budget threads for the top tier and developing competitive decks. I went to post my soldier/white weenie deck asking for budget advice, noticing a second white weenie budget thread almost immediately below me created by another user. I felt it would be ridiculous to post in HIS white weenie thread, since that was his thread for budget complaints and advice. (More than likely, the mods will close that thread- I admit I logically should have posted in his thread, but it seemed uncalled for at the time.)
That's why I feel this forum should have more top-tier threads for budget listed in the deckbuilding section of the forum. I saw there was a large, official thread for allies. and I think the other deck types should get something along those lines. Original threads based around specific cards get quick responses because that's what that area should be for. Few people are going to want to read your new take on White Weenie if it's in the deckbuilding area when they could read somebody's original take on Wrexial, the Risen Deep, Sceptor of Dominance, or other such "build-around-me" cards.
That's my one complaint about the forum at this time. Perhaps the mods will agree with me. Perhaps not. Either way, this is more THEIR forum than it is mine. After all, they're the ones who put in the time to keep it organized for us.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Amen to MMO's making you hate people. On that note, I play WoW. And I just wanted to point out that the mods here have nothing on an over-eager power hungry guild master or Raid leader. At least our discussions aren't on ventrilo, where the "mods", for the sake of this argument, incessantly (and irreverently) flame you when you don't even do something wrong. I'd say feeling like a mod is "power-hungry" (which most cases I do not) is a fair trade to the complete degradation of rules and order whatsoever. At least we don't have to hear the mods and person, and likewise, they don't have to hear us.
Standard
Turboland
RDW
Extended-Come October
Faeries
BW Tokens
Legacy
Zoo
Dredge
Read them.
Learn by getting infractions.
If you choose the latter (like I did :p) then shut up when they're handed down to you.
How you should approach every game of Magic.
Mod Helpdesk (defunct)
My Flawless Score MCC Card | My Other One | # Three!
At the risk of driving this further off topic, Irecently stepped down from raiding in WoW, to go for PvP. Granted it can be just as frustrating, but at least you can do it on your own terms. I used to be rather mild mannered and laid back towards people online and would just chat on MSN or in chat rooms. After being on forums and playing WoW, I can definitely say I'm far more hateful (possibly embittered) and my patience runs severely short with assclowns.
Anyway, to be more on topic, I'm thankful we have the mods we do here to make communities as large a mostly smooth ride. It's not atypical of communities this large to feel rather impersonal, but despite how much MTGS has grown since it's inception, it still feels like a home, in the virtual sense. So, consider this a thank you to the mods for not succumbing to the chaos that is internet anonymity.
(Also known as Xenphire)
although it has gotten a lot better since we have the new board software installed.
people will always complain about moderators. more so when they get in trouble.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
A truthful statement, but with provisions.
I've been a mod on 1000+ user forums before. I've been in a leadership position in a few online communities. If you're to the point where you enforce rules simply by virtue of their existence, while not paying mind to the context of that rule and it's reason for existence, you've failed as a moderator and a leader.
I've been subject to, and seen, plenty of such moderation here. I'm not going to waste my time digging up examples, because being a forum moderator often instill a sense of "If you don't like it, leave". One would be hard pressed to find any situation where any kind of 'Reform' has successfully occurred in a setting like this, aside from one to two people losing mod privileges.
Further, I've personally had posts REMOVED. Not because they were offensive, or violated some kind of ethical code, but because they didn't exactly fit in to the topic being discussed. This is wrong. Flagging posts is one thing, but deleting something I said because it was slightly off-topic? That kind of action begins to move into an entirely worse, far more sinister realm of control. Even being a Forum Administrator, i've never felt I had the right to do that, save for extreme situations. Censoring of specific words via random character replacement? That's one thing. Deleting entire posts, as though that person never said what they said? Attempt to view that in a more real-life context. It's disturbing. Do not claim your forum is a public discussion place, and then fully censor the opinions of the public.
The 3-Warning and you're on a timeout system here, while it may seem fine, suggest that after 3 rules violations, you've become a hindrance or a detriment to the community. If I can get a month ban because I accidentally double post without realizing it (i.e. browser posts it twice), as well as make an offhanded 5-word remark about the availability of a card in a 4 paragraph post, followed by accidentally forgetting a deck tag, all within the course of a weekend, then that's rule enforcement without consideration of the context. This is like saying "If you get 3 parking tickets, you go to jail for a month".
Rules should be enforced on a BANNING level when the rules violated/actions committed actually impacted the community. Not because 3 random people noticed 3 separate editorial mistakes. And for the record, the aforementioned situation, more or less, happened to me. Here. Additionally, I did send a message explaining myself in each separate occasion, and asking for it to be appealed to someone in a higher position. I was told it would be, and never heard back again. Not much of an appeal process if the master IN pile is a garbage can.
Don't misunderstand me. I understand the need for strict rule enforcement. But like I said, I've seen some that seemed to be purely "Rules being enforced purely by virtue of their existence."
Being a moderator is a serious responsibility. You cannot address things nonchalantly, and you cannot address them in an over-serious manner, either. Extremes are traditionally wrong in, well, human life. If you want to remain in control of a community, you essentially have two options: Make them afraid to cross you, or make them respect your authority. Fear may carry the illusion of respect, but it is NOT respect.
I do not apply this series of statements as a catch-all. I am not ignorant enough to pose the supposition that all, or any, admins on this forum are corrupt. I'm suggesting, moreover, that there are too many situations where 'catch-all' rule enforcement is occurring, while in some cases, context and validity of that rule enforcement is being overlooked.
I admit the mistakes i've made in my time here that have gotten me warnings WERE my fault, but I certainly do not feel that most, if any, of them deserved temporary bans over. Then again, that's just my opinion, and I neither own, maintain, or operate these forums.
I hope I've explained my points in a way that's both decipherable and respectful.
Thank you for Kennethwong, for inspiring me to do this sig pic when I was bored.
GENERATION 15: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
The unfortunate part is that your long-winded rant (and the part I quoted in particular) only shows that you don't understand the rules here that you're complaining about, and that you failed to read the thread's topic at all - homing in on the thread's actual point that most of the people complaining about moderators are complaining about imagined slights, and they'd be better served making sure they understand how the forum works rather than starting threads to complain about how horrible everyone is. :/
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
And as I said earlier, I'm personally much less apt to treat a complaint seriously if the accuser can only say "Oh, I've seen many examples of poor moderation here. But I'm not going to bother backing that up."
I'm far more apt to just disregard the point since if the accuser isn't taking it seriously, how can I be expected to?
If your post was deleted, it was worse than just 'slightly off-topic'. Yes, we delete posts. We delete a lot of them in fact. The truth of the matter is that there are a great swell of posters here who don't even put the minimal amount of thought/effort into their posts, yielding far too many posts that are not up to par. Given the unfathomably high number of such posts, we as a staff cannot (particularly in the Rumor Mill) moderate all of these posts. So we moderate the worst or most constant offenders, and delete the borderline as needed to clean up threads.
The continued existence of some fairly facepalm-worthy posts around here should give you an indication of just how low a post's quality has to be before we delete it.
Of course, the other reason we delete posts is that letting them remain after moderating (as in, warning or infracting them) causes more harm than good. I may infract a particularly nasty flame post and decide that though our usual policy to leave the offending post with a modtext note, leaving it will only serve to further upset other posters and disrupt the thread. Or if a particularly off-topic rant about mythic rarity in the Rulings forum is warned for spam and then deleted since it still represents a disruption to the thread it's in.
It's public-ish in that anyone can join. But in fact, this forum is more of a private entity than anything else. Members are expected to play by our rules. Most do (even with the odd slip-up), but the ones that don't are dealt with. Users who feel they're entitled to say whatever they want because of Free Speech are in for a rude awakening.
No, three active infractions implies that you've consistently failed to read and/or follow our rules after being warned to do so. Of course, I get the implication that you don't understand our warning/infraction/suspension system given that you're trying to say it only takes three rules violations to receive a suspension.
No. First of all, that's not how things work here. If a browser screw-up doubles a post, it's obvious and the staff tends to not punish for it unless the user in question somehow handles the situation terribly. As far as the other two, yes, they would likely result in a warning each if they were both first offenses. But that only yields two warnings (0 points since a warning is only worth 0 points each) over a weekend, not even close to the standard for suspension (which would be 3 points) since this hypothetical poster hasn't been infracted yet (an active infraction, essentially a second-level punishment reserved for when a user has already been warned for a particular rule in the past, is worth 1 point as long as it's active).
In your example, this poster wouldn't be suspended. It would take a few more spammy posts after the warning, probably another post without deck tags, before he'd have 3 points. At that point, he'd have a couple warnings and three infractions in a weekend. If you can't see why that's problematic behavior, I can't help you.
We accept that people make mistakes, we all do from time to time. That's why our rules are setup as such to promote second chances and learning from mistakes and suspensions are reserved for those who have shown that they haven't learned from their past mistakes.
I think your complaints here would resonate more if you understood how our rules actually work.
No it didn't. You clearly evaded the censor and were warned for it and you posted a wildly off-topic rant about mythic rarity in a Rulings thread about Comet Storm and were warned. Both cases were clear-cut and handled appropriately. And you're still in no danger of being suspended as a result of those two warnings.
As a sort of sidenote here, and for future reference to those who may want to complain about the staff down the road, don't misrepresent your warning/infraction history as a means to engender sympathy to your argument. I'm not sure that was the case here, but this reply is leading me to bring this up now, because it'll likely come up again.
I mean, if during the course of an argument about the conduct of the staff, you try and say that you got an infraction for flaming because a mod was biased and unfair and blew a joke out of proportion, I'm going to investigate your claim. And when I find out that the mod was completely reasonable because your 'joke' was "lol, suck it up you stupid loser, you can't make a deck for ☺☺☺☺. go back to your mother's basement and cry about it", I'm going to completely blow you out of the water. Because if there is one thing I have little tolerance for, it's a user dragging a good mod through the mud because the user has a tantrum over a reasonable moderation and is trying to get the community to side with him.
Again, Darthbone, this wasn't directed at you. It's just something writing this reply dredged up that I felt the need to say since it does typically come up at least once each time we discuss the staff.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Who did what now? Did you READ the OP?
Do you mean the practice of leaving mod text in a post to let people know that an element(s) of that post was unacceptable? Or the reservation of bold red text for mod use only?
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
Exactly that, glad we're on the same page
It's no biggy if you dont like asshats calling each other "SUPR DUM FART HEDS" and drop the hammer on them, or prevent the use of OBNOXIOUSLY LARGE TEXT FOR NO REASON, but really, I think order could be maintained without the use of indiscriminate, nit picking, to the teeth power grabs/exemplifications. Order can be maintained without the use of stringent scrutiny you know
Plus mods wouldn't have to waste time dealing with half of the meaningless things they doll out warning for. A reminder works in a post. Hey man, use correct deck tagging, or we use that text so could ya refrain from that? Instead of seeing warning, and infractions, and all this "official" crap in your PMs. It kind feels like having a cop show up to your door almost because you didn't park perfectly center and/or close enough to the curb. It's pretty excessive. I think a good ammount of reasonable and mature mods whom are open to thoughts and ideas would do just as well, if not better than a squad of mods that crack down on every little nuance that starts to suggest the decay of a community.
Hell, given human nature and whatnot i'm sure someone will find something wrong with this post and toss me some sort of punishment for suggesting various mods should cut their crap. Hell it's just like working for a city/state, unless your above someone, everything you say or suggest to a superior that is contrary to their ideas and beliefs is wrong, and in some cases punishable because they got butt hurt by your ideals.
And if there is no official reminder, how are mods supposed to know when you ignore it and keep doing it? No, you get a warning. If you don't want a warning, read the rules. If you don't read the rules, then you don't have any room to complain about warnings.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
Strawman argument.
That text is reserved so that people know it's a mod edit. No mod edit in a post, which would signify that the post was looked at, can mean people reporting the post several times over because they don't know if the mod has seen it.
Would you mind giving examples of this 'indiscriminate, nit picking, to the teeth power grabs/exemplifications.'
That's one of the purposes of mod text.
It depends on that the user did to warrant a warning/infraction.
That's quite an exaggerated analogy.
You would do well to stop needlessly painting yourself as a victim. It bogs the conversation down with triviality, instead of discussing the heart of the matter.
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
This isn't 'a sinister realm of control', it's preventing future posts that are off-topic.
You are, however, correct that 'flagging posts is one thing', but if a post is deleted, chances are it's more than 'slightly' off-topic.
Mafia Stats 2016-2017:
Town: 1-0 | Scum: 2-0 | Neutral: 1-1
The heart of the matter is, and i'm sure a large, if not majorital (<--- I just made that work up, sweet) percentage of the people on this site would agree that it's just inane some of the things people get "officially" slapped on the wrist for doing. As for the rules reading, I doubt many people do read them to begin with, hell i'm sure many mods when they signed up for their first post didn't read the rules until they got more involved in the community. It's like legislation, how many people actually read the health care reforms racing through congress, word for word? They just aren't interested, regular folk believe civil conduct and a system that exercises humanity and lenience, like in common social situations, will suffice.
If a mod edited a post, shouldn't the last edited by thing show up with the mod's name?
An example? Dolling out infractions for a post in the wrong area or hell even the mod text violations. Let's be human, ya know? The most favored police are the one's with humanity, they also tend to stay on the force longer and make better money and have more leniency with the public's scrutiny and opinion on their actions.
I think it's important to realize that these mod's are people like me and other's, going through the same grinds of life as we are. They just donate their time and effort to the site and try to maintain order in whichever way. I personally believe, given my experiences here, that some moderation should just be left in a more casual and friendly manner. The message gets across, takes virtually the same amount of time and it improves the mod's reputation amongst the community.
There's a great community here and lurking through the forums and reading various articles has improved my game greatly. Hell i've gone from 12-8th place finishes out of 30 or so to 5th-1st after lurking about, it just seems alot of people feel the same sting of violating some rule put in place for the ease of the moderators. I've been to no forums in my experience and ever had to deal with red text rule and moderators were able to edit posts and get their points across.
Don't think what I type is out of personnel butt hurt, the internet is an angry, cruel mistress of a place and i'm numb to all sort of insult/injury. Hell, i'm not worried about not being able to access the forums or anything either cause i'll always have an account regardless of what stupid things I may do to get one banned. It's just observations on how moderators could approach the public and moderation in general.
Less black and white and more grey. I'd rather speak with other humans online instead of conditioned, formal friends. I do enough censoring myself at work dealing with suits.
Large majority? Considering the people who have made threads here venting and complaining about the mods because they got infracted for something they almost certainly deserved, I'd argue that the people who complain are in the very small minority, not the majority.
This is a very poor analogy, as the forum rules are not a 2000+ page health care reform bill. It's more apt to compare the forum rules to something much more simple, such as traffic laws. Just because you didn't read the rules doesn't mean you should be exempt from them.
Yes, it will show up.
Posting in the wrong area is usually met with warnings at first. I've only seen people really get infracted for such a thing when it's a repeat offense, or if the mods decide themselves to crack down on such a thing.
Also, regarding mod text:
The rules clearly state you shouldn't edit your post after a mod has done it, so what's the big deal here?
The moderation here is at a higher standard than most forums, yes. That's a good thing, because otherwise you would have to deal with all sorts of garbage that you would usually find on other forums that are much more lenient.
However, the mods here aren't really that bad at all. If you want to see real draconian modship, go to The Source or TheManaDrain.
You'll notice though, that just because you don't read legislation doesn't mean you are exempt from following it once it gets passed.
Also, if you don't read the rules, you really have no right to complain. It's like going to another country and breaking a law there, you don't let go just because you didn't know about it. If you don't take the time to read the rules you deal with the consequences.
Maybe I'm strange in that I ACTUALLY read the rules post before my first post because it says you are supposed to do so. It's not like you get an infraction for one rules violation anyway and most mods are pretty nice when you actually contact them via PM or the helpdesk instead of berating them in front of everyone in this subforum which is usually where all this mod-drama comes from.
I currently play only two formats, what I play in them is:
Legacy: Domain Zoo, RGW Zoo, Merfolk, Solidarity, Mono Black Aggro
EDH: Kagemaro, First to Suffer
This site, 'Salvation, has been around for five years. The community (which migrated from MTGNews) has been around for 10+. That's 10 years for us to figure out what rules are needed and what levels of moderation are needed. 5 years at this particular site with these particular members. And we constantly check to make sure we're not being over-sensitive.
In contrast, many of the people who complain have been here for a year or less.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Occassionally a Mod is a little overzealous, I personally got a warning for something I disagreed with, but these things have to be taken in stride. I've also had Mods edit my posts and fix decklists and card links with no warning/infraction issued, since I obviously have little experience with such things.
So yea, I can see where the complaints are coming from, but that's to be expected when people migrate to a better regulated forum.
What some fail at, quite dismally in fact, is allowing their opinion to dictate how a thread should continue and then the sheer audacity of closing threads. There are a very few who are like this and in fact I can only think of one mod in particular who is guilty of this arrogant approach to moderating.
Visit the speculation forum, and you'll find mods jump in and end threads they "feel" are not worthy of speculation.
Moderation is not a playground for your opinion.
Closing threads that have no basis in reality is not the same as closing threads we don't like. Just because someone thinks "It would be cool if..." doesn't mean that the thought is legitimate speculation.
A person may find it cool, but fifty other people will not.
Mafia Stats 2016-2017:
Town: 1-0 | Scum: 2-0 | Neutral: 1-1
While it is true that a great deal of people are dissatisfied with the forum, this number should be put in perspective. Mtgsalvation is a large forum compared to the forums that I have visited.
For that reason, it's important that Mtgsalvation stay organized. People shouldn't be allowed to post whatever they want wherever they want. I think the moderators do a good job of this. Though I was initially dissatisfied with Mtgsalvation because I received a near four infractions in my starting week here on this forum, I manned up and learned how this forum works, just like every senior and frequent member on this forum (I belong to the latter, of course.)
However, I do have some complaints, which I think is the reason this forum was made, though the cause for this forum should not be for the "fed up" people because the "fed up" people rarely intelligently express their grievances.
The complaints, or rather complaint, is as follows:
I. This forum isn't terribly good to budget decks. In my humble opinion, there are just too few budget threads for the top tier and developing competitive decks. I went to post my soldier/white weenie deck asking for budget advice, noticing a second white weenie budget thread almost immediately below me created by another user. I felt it would be ridiculous to post in HIS white weenie thread, since that was his thread for budget complaints and advice. (More than likely, the mods will close that thread- I admit I logically should have posted in his thread, but it seemed uncalled for at the time.)
That's why I feel this forum should have more top-tier threads for budget listed in the deckbuilding section of the forum. I saw there was a large, official thread for allies. and I think the other deck types should get something along those lines. Original threads based around specific cards get quick responses because that's what that area should be for. Few people are going to want to read your new take on White Weenie if it's in the deckbuilding area when they could read somebody's original take on Wrexial, the Risen Deep, Sceptor of Dominance, or other such "build-around-me" cards.
That's my one complaint about the forum at this time. Perhaps the mods will agree with me. Perhaps not. Either way, this is more THEIR forum than it is mine. After all, they're the ones who put in the time to keep it organized for us.