Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Off-topic posts, trolling, and flooding – these are things that definitely don't deserve points, because, frankly, if you look hard enough, you can find trolling and hidden meaning everywhere.
It's wrong to lump off-topic posts, flooding, and trolling together. Trolling, unlike flooding and off-topic posts, is an attempt to incite conflict. A post containing trolling can lead to more serious violations, such as: flaming, using offensive language, and directly insulting users. Are you suggesting that instigators shouldn't be penalized for their actions? No, thank you.
Moreover, these points largely create inequality among users, as some already have 30 points for these violations, while others, who are just as much trolls/flooders, have nothing.
Such statements should be supported by facts.
4.22. - In some cases, such immunity is not a good thing; moderators can also make mistakes or act based on their own emotions.
There is no immunity, and there never has been. That's one.
Secondly, this rule covers cases like the following:
A user writes an inappropriate post in a thread. A moderator deletes the post. Then, in the same thread, the user starts complaining that their post was deleted, and at best, they simply write something like, "I wrote everything correctly, why was my post deleted?" This is the best-case scenario; in the worst case, there will be insults and attempts to incite other users to take action against the moderator, etc.
This point mainly reflects this situation and all its variations.
There is a "dialogue with moderators" thread for constructive discussions. The fact that no one really uses it shows that the rule-breakers don't care about order and etiquette; they just want to vent their negativity on the forum. They are like unrecognized heroes of the virtual world.
The first and only appeal was not very successful. It turned out that the vote was attended by people who, due to inactivity, could have been removed from their moderator positions long ago.
What does the frequency of a moderator's presence online have to do with the objectivity of their decision on such a matter? Until they are removed, they are a moderator who, according to the current rules, can participate in the vote.
And who should participate in the vote? The rule-breaker's friends?
Of course, talking to moderators, pointing out their mistakes, and so on is useful and will definitely contribute to the development of the forum, but only under one condition: such a discussion should not be an empty argument and should not take place in a thread that is in no way related to moderation.
Отдай свои прошлые сны, В сомненьях себя обрети, В бешеном танце душа кружится! Не думай, что будет потом, Здесь и сейчас мы живем, Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!
I have a different opinion; trolling is like a kindergarten. I'm too lazy to give examples; I'm just relying on my rich experience XD.
Unfortunately, it's not just a kindergarten. More precisely, the consequences can sometimes be serious.
But again, you're not looking at it from the right angle. If the consequences turn out to be serious, then that's when you should take strict action and award points; if it's just childish, then it's unlikely anyone will award points.
Regarding the friends of the offender, that's debatable. You could say, "Who should participate, the moderator's invited friends?"
It's not quite about that. I mean that users definitely shouldn't participate in the voting. It's better to have moderators who rarely log in.
Отдай свои прошлые сны, В сомненьях себя обрети, В бешеном танце душа кружится! Не думай, что будет потом, Здесь и сейчас мы живем, Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!
It has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread that some moderators who rarely visit the forum are so infrequent that they haven't posted for five years. And now, suddenly, they appear, quickly understand the situation, and vote in the appeal thread.
Moderator Rules
1. A moderator must periodically visit the portal and perform the duties of a moderator, as defined by these rules. The frequency of a moderator's visits depends on the activity of users in their sections. (In active sections, it is desirable to visit at least once a day, and in less active sections, at least twice a week) 16. If a moderator is inactive for more than 2 months, the question of removing them from their position may be raised.
It seems to me, or are approximately two of the above rules not being followed regarding several moderators of the portal?
Regarding the main topic, I believe that most of these points should not be removed. The first four rules will be revised, and that's good, but why does Pavel Dubrovin suggest not assigning penalties for insults, as well as for flame and trolling that leads to insults – I don't understand. Imagine what will happen if everyone starts insulting each other on the forum, and the moderators will be working hard to clean it all up.
Another issue is that it is not always clear what constitutes off-topic, what constitutes flooding, and what constitutes trolling. Especially the latter. Trolling can be disguised in any message, but it is often impossible to prove that it is there. A similar situation exists with so-called indirect insults. Not long ago, there was a dispute on the forum about this, involving messages to the Creator and other things.
4.22 (regarding discussions of moderator actions) could be removed, but Ment and Zubr have well described what needs to be done. I can only suggest adding a link to the "Dialogues with Moderators" thread in this rule, so that newcomers or others who are not in the know know where to express their complaints.
And 4.15 (regarding addressing users by a nickname other than their original one) – yes, perhaps it is the only rule that should be removed from the list.
Personally, I think that the points for section 4.22 should be reduced, and significantly so. At most, leave 25 points, and only for specific instances of unjustified criticism, when a moderator or coordinator is unfairly attacked and users are incited against them.
As for section 4.9, either increase the points or make it so that section 4.22 results in fewer than 25 points for users. Because insults are a much more serious offense than "criticism" of moderators, even though some of them almost every post where something slightly negative is said about the moderators (and of course, it doesn't matter that in some cases, such negative words are justified).
Added 3 minutes later
I'm not saying that users shouldn't participate in the voting at all. I'm just saying that it would be better if moderators, who rarely visit, participated.
Who are essentially friends of the moderator. Let's be honest.
It seems to me, or are approximately two of the rules mentioned above not being followed in relation to several moderators of the portal?
It says that "the question of removing him from his position may be raised," not "he must be removed." Therefore, everything is according to the rules. And, as far as I remember, this rule was adopted because there was a problem at one time with a lot of off-topic posts in the sections, and there was no moderator for the section, and the amount of "garbage" was increasing. At least, that's what people were talking about at the time.
Отдай свои прошлые сны, В сомненьях себя обрети, В бешеном танце душа кружится! Не думай, что будет потом, Здесь и сейчас мы живем, Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!
And 4.15 (regarding addressing users by a nickname different from their original one) - yes, perhaps it's the only rule that should be removed from the list.
Then they'll call me Neuro =( Although I agree, it's a useless rule.
Added 1 minute ago
It says "the question of his removal from office may be raised," not "he must be removed." Therefore, everything is according to the rules.
So what's the problem? Remove them; moderators like that are not needed for the forum anyway.
Отдай свои прошлые сны, В сомненьях себя обрети, В бешеном танце душа кружится! Не думай, что будет потом, Здесь и сейчас мы живем, Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!
Отдай свои прошлые сны, В сомненьях себя обрети, В бешеном танце душа кружится! Не думай, что будет потом, Здесь и сейчас мы живем, Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!
Don't make unsubstantiated claims about things you don't know.
But it's all obvious anyway =) why lie? You'd think someone might start arguing about it now.
And yes, I didn't discuss the other points earlier. Points for flooding and off-topic posts are pointless, in my opinion. And even more so, banning people for it. As for the points for creating duplicate threads, I don't know, because people might have created a duplicate without knowing. Of course, points should be awarded for flaming and trolling, and that's not up for discussion. As for appeals, I'll refrain from commenting. Anyway, it's unlikely anyone will use it again.
Well, it's obvious anyway =) why lie? You'd think someone would start arguing about it now.
I, for example, also voted there. But only because I had to.
Therefore, I don't find your statement very pleasant. And I think there are others who feel the same way. So it's wrong to lump everyone together.
Отдай свои прошлые сны, В сомненьях себя обрети, В бешеном танце душа кружится! Не думай, что будет потом, Здесь и сейчас мы живем, Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!
It says "the question of his removal from office may be raised," not "he must be removed."
In that case, I think it would be better to replace the word "may" with the word "must." The question of removing the moderator from office must be raised. Because it is completely wrong when a person almost completely neglects the forum and leaves, but remains a moderator. Of course, there are situations when a person is forced for whatever reason not to visit the forum for several months, which is why the question of removal from office is raised, and he is not automatically removed.
Well, I also voted there. But only because I had to. That's why your statement isn't very pleasant to me, and I think there are others who feel the same way. So, it's wrong to lump everyone together.
I'm mainly talking about those who appear on the forum once every six months or less.
As a rule, if a person cannot visit the forum due to certain circumstances, they honestly inform us about it and, in some cases, ask to be relieved of their duties.
As far as I remember, because of this rule, one of the Razers was almost removed from our chat section.
And the point about addressing someone by a nickname other than their original one can be smoothly combined with the point about insults or trolling, as mentioned above. But the rules should specify what this applies to, otherwise, everyone will start arguing again.
If I had the authority, I would have removed half of the moderators a long time ago, even if it meant leaving a section without a moderator. It's easier to post links to violations from a section to a specific topic where coordinators would handle them. _Prizrak_ Lux in tenebris LotR SteN KAPABAH ValgallaWolf vbn fireman Brennan Alex Ghost Alex_soldier and many others who came to vote in the topic but are essentially not active on the forum. What are these people needed for? They are useless to the forum. Revoke all moderator privileges. If they want to return, they can get them back.
Zybr
Нэйко
