Plans as Moderator

LukeM · 2017-04-09 10:15:01

AnatolyEE wrote:

Everyone was once banned if not a extremely good boy. I wonder why 2,000 people left EE... Now I get it. Everybodyedits is played only by super-good Boys without bans. And even this super-good-boys get banned... :/
People aren't Gods to make everything right.

It's really easy not to be banned...
I've never really thought about the rules, but they are all things you should generally do, even without being told, so I haven't broken them

Xenonetix, N1KF, TaskManager

Xenonetix · 2017-04-09 10:16:43

Odd that you decided to come straight to the forums with this instead of discussing it with the team first, but so be it.

phinarose wrote:

I have noticed that an EE member who has committed a minor offense will receive a one day ban, which to me is very excessive. In instances of minor offenses, I would implement a 30 minute or one hour ban, on the player. If the player then decides to reoffend the same action, I would increase the ban to two hours, etc. Again, this would only be done for minor offenses, which will be determined on a case to case basis.

As JaWapa mentioned, a one day ban is more likely to affect a person. This is partially due to the daily login system as many people log in at least once a day.

That said, if the system could be adjusted so that the ban only takes effect from the moment of login, I would be entirely on board with this idea. If a person logs in with the intention of playing, only to find that this incurs a one hour ban timer (and I do think that shorter than an hour is not worth it), the ban would likely have the desired effect and impact.

phinarose wrote:

Also, in the past moderation there has been lack of communication between moderators and EE players. What I mean by this is sometimes the chat logs may not be enough to get the full story and it’s best that moderators reach out to both sides to discuss what happened to determine what would be the best punishment. Another issue I would like to bring up is that some people are banned and don’t understand the reasoning behind it. I must stress that it is important to tell them exactly why they were banned and the reasoning behind the duration of the ban, that way they aren’t completely blindsided.

Since I became a moderator, I investigate situations, have actively been seeking out players and discussing issues with them, and am always as clear as I can possibly be in my ban reasons. You seem to be basing this comment on previous moderators who were not clear enough, and who are no longer moderators.

Meanwhile, as someone who's complaining about a lack of communication, it seems somewhat ironic and hypocritical that you decided to come straight to the forums with these comments rather than discussing it with the staff team. This confuses me, and I would love to discuss it further. If you want all these communications to be public, so be it.

phinarose wrote:

Lastly, I would like to stress that the system that EE moderators use to view reports, give bans, etc. is very outdated. However, there are plans to change this system to achieve these goals, so it is important to be patient while these changes are being made.

Again, a very odd thing to point out on the forums. Indeed, the system will be improved.

mrjawapa, Koya

Doomsdaytoy9000 · 2017-04-09 11:29:44

Kefka wrote:

BOIIIII if u think EE died out because of bans... i don't know what to say.

Actually the forums dieing out cause of bans

skullz17

mutantdevle · 2017-04-09 12:14:34

Here are my 2 suggestions:

Like most people have said, bans should only activate from the moment the user logs in. So when they log in, if they have received a 1 hour ban then they will be banned for 1 hour since they logged in. likewise, this could also work for all duration of bans. For example, if someone has been banned for 1 week, from the moment they log in they will not be able to play for 168 hours. (Though these kind of things should probably also have an expiration date, for example if someone has a 1 hour ban and they log in after a few months it seems kind of silly to make them wait another hour to play. Similarly a 1 week ban should not prevent someone who hasn't logged on in over a year from playing for another week).

My second suggestion would be, since people can't seem to agree what time period of ban is long enough for minor situations; why not just, instead of banning them, remove their ability to chat? Muting players for a duration of time will prevent players from breaking rules, such as spamming, without seeming too harsh with a ban. A 1 day mute seems like a good replacement for a 1 day ban and is more effective than a 1 hour ban. At least, in my opinion it is anyway.

mrjawapa, MartenM, Koya, Slabdrill, LukeM, Xfrogman43, TaskManager, N1KF

Xfrogman43 · 2017-04-09 17:22:17

Mega Lamb wrote:

Meanwhile, as someone who's complaining about a lack of communication, it seems somewhat ironic and hypocritical that you decided to come straight to the forums with these comments rather than discussing it with the staff team. This confuses me, and I would love to discuss it further. If you want all these communications to be public, so be it.

It would be better to discuss with the community first because staff (like yourself) can read it whenever you want as well. Maybe you could tell each other that you posted on forums so you are first to read it but I don't think that it really matters in this specific case. Bans are not meant for staff, they are meant for the players, so coming to the players first is a good choice.

mutantdevle

Ratburntro44 · 2017-04-09 17:33:20

AnatolyEE wrote:

Kefka wrote:
BOIIIII if u think EE died out because of bans... i don't know what to say.
That's my opinion. If you got another...
Let-et-t me hear it...

probably died because it's a mediocre flash game that depends on a good player base to be at all worth playing, so the moment a notable portion of the creative players leave (out of probably inevitable boredom) the game is doomed to enter a death spiral

Onjit

Master1 · 2017-04-09 18:17:26

Alright guys lets add a new one to the moderator complain list!
> Too strict
> Too lenient
> Doesn't do anything
*NEW* > Does too much

Legit funny that people are actually complaining about this. Hope everything works out well for you Phina, seems like a nice idea to me.

Devlin wrote:

My second suggestion would be, since people can't seem to agree what time period of ban is long enough for minor situations; why not just, instead of banning them, remove their ability to chat? Muting players for a duration of time will prevent players from breaking rules, such as spamming, without seeming too harsh with a ban. A 1 day mute seems like a good replacement for a 1 day ban and is more effective than a 1 hour ban. At least, in my opinion it is anyway.

I remember suggesting that once while I was a mod.
Then nobody added it.
Then Nou got all **** because I suggested it, like it was a terrible crime or something.

Quote from nou: "part of the reason I demodded you was the fact that you suggested chat bans, it shows weakness"

fun!

mutantdevle, Muftwin

mutantdevle · 2017-04-09 18:39:12

Master1 wrote:

Quote from nou: "part of the reason I demodded you was the fact that you suggested chat bans, it shows weakness"
fun!

Nou actually demodded you for that? RIP. That is harsh. I really don't understand how that is weakness; it's a valid suggestion and a likely soloution in the current scenario.

Koya, N1KF

Offensive Ray · 2017-04-09 18:53:29

Phinarose i guess that you're the best moderator that ee would ever have

LukeM · 2017-04-09 20:44:09

Devlin wrote:

Master1 wrote:
Quote from nou: "part of the reason I demodded you was the fact that you suggested chat bans, it shows weakness"
fun!
Nou actually demodded you for that? RIP. That is harsh. I really don't understand how that is weakness; it's a valid suggestion and a likely soloution in the current scenario.

If thats the main reason then it is very harsh, but there must have been other reasons
I see where he was coming from, because as a mod you shouldn't feel sorry for the players after they've broken the rules, otherwise you'll never enforce the rules correctly, but I wouldnt really use it as a reason to warrant demodding someone

Master1 · 2017-04-09 21:01:19

destroyer123 wrote:

If thats the main reason then it is very harsh, but there must have been other reasons
I see where he was coming from, because as a mod you shouldn't feel sorry for the players after they've broken the rules, otherwise you'll never enforce the rules correctly, but I wouldnt really use it as a reason to warrant demodding someone

Probably wasn't the main reason, but knowing it was part of it still bothers me.

Also, I agree that you shouldn't feel sorry for them, but you should always base your punishments off what they did wrong. I find it pretty dumb that breaking a chat related rule can result in you no longer being able to play the game, especially when this game already has so few players. If we were really trying to grow EE, you would think that we'd want to keep as many people around as possible. Chat bans would drastically help with this, as it still punishes players who break rules while actually keeping them on the game.

Koya, LukeM, N1KF, Badoosh, Onjit, mutantdevle, Xenonetix, Dencc, Muftwin, Jorc, Tipocarlos

Xenonetix · 2017-04-10 23:34:39

Xfrogman43 wrote:

It would be better to discuss with the community first because staff (like yourself) can read it whenever you want as well. Maybe you could tell each other that you posted on forums so you are first to read it but I don't think that it really matters in this specific case. Bans are not meant for staff, they are meant for the players, so coming to the players first is a good choice.

I concede that point, but the initial post felt far more like an attack on previous staff and moderators than a post asking for feedback from the community. If the post was sincerely just asking for community feedback, then apologies for the misunderstanding, but it felt far more like a post saying "This is what I think, and this is what should be done, no matter what the community or the staff says."

The post has suggestions that could have just been taken directly to the staff to get fixed, such as the "outdated" moderator software for example. As the community has no idea how that software works, I don't really understand the sense of posting about changes to the software, or asking for community feedback about what the software should do.

I like logic and understanding. I'm just struggling to comprehend the current existence of this topic, and that bothers me. If Phinarose has explanations for me, I would love to hear them, but right now, it appears Phinarose is avoiding this topic since posting it, and, however much I like logic puzzles, this is one I can't seem to solve.

XxAtillaxX · 2017-04-10 23:44:44

It's not untimely to communicate with both players when situations are conflicting, it's the imperatively correct decision once you ditch the assumption that reports would be handled on an untimely basis.
It isn't hard to respond to reports as they arise, instead of waiting several days before handling them en-masse, as the previous administration did.

Mega Lamb wrote:

The post has suggestions that could have just been taken directly to the staff to get fixed, such as the "outdated" moderator software for example. As the community has no idea how that software works, I don't really understand the sense of posting about changes to the software, or asking for community feedback about what the software should do.

It's a matter of usability.
As it is currently, there's no way to be alerted of incoming reports nor sort them by urgency.

Tipocarlos · 2017-04-11 21:30:56

u worms are giving phinarose so much **** for no reason...

its actually pathetic that when someone new comes along and actually wants to help this dying **** community u subgeeds have to waste ur puny breaths making them feel like **** until they give up and leave

u should all actually die

mrjawapa · 2017-04-11 21:46:19

Tipocarlos wrote:

**** community

Tipocarlos wrote:

u should all actually die

HeyNK · 2017-04-11 22:05:21

Tipocarlos wrote:

u worms are giving phinarose so much **** for no reason...
its actually pathetic that when someone new comes along and actually wants to help this dying **** community u subgeeds have to waste ur puny breaths making them feel like **** until they give up and leave
u should all actually die

But she's a girl! Don't you want an e-girlfriend!
I gotta say, ever since mrshoe bailed, being a mod in this game is a death sentence. You're not going to survive very long until you're assassinated for no reason. How many people can you name off that rose to power then vanished? KoTO was one of the first because he quit. For these reasons I welcome phinarose as mod. Not because I think you'll do a good job, but because I'm okay with you vanishing in the near future.

Xfrogman43 · 2017-04-12 00:12:13

HeyNK wrote:

Tipocarlos wrote:
u worms are giving phinarose so much **** for no reason...
its actually pathetic that when someone new comes along and actually wants to help this dying **** community u subgeeds have to waste ur puny breaths making them feel like **** until they give up and leave
u should all actually die
But she's a girl! Don't you want an e-girlfriend!
I gotta say, ever since mrshoe bailed, being a mod in this game is a death sentence. You're not going to survive very long until you're assassinated for no reason. How many people can you name off that rose to power then vanished? KoTO was one of the first because he quit. For these reasons I welcome phinarose as mod. Not because I think you'll do a good job, but because I'm okay with you vanishing in the near future.

Thats mean...
Sure most of them quit or got demoted but they were mostly for the ssme reason: they didnt "mod correctly". Like most things, mods have a different lpinion on how to mod, but they have to abide by the owners rules if they want to stay and the owner is like a dictator in a way

Koto · 2017-04-12 20:17:37

Welcome Phinarose! I'm sure you'll do a fine jib, based on the goal you have set out to achieve. If you ever want to talk, I can try to offer my past experience to help you out if you need, or just want to talk.

I can give you my Skype, if you want.

Prodigy

MFL · 2017-04-12 21:24:16

Alright, let me weigh in here.

First of all, insofar as EE moderation was what it was once - and notwithstanding tangents besides the essence of action - there are three quadrants of four values at stake. This is not to say that jurisprudence is a discipline requiring a hierarchy of conceptual merit; in fact, most of what the Phinarose debate has brought forth into the front of the background is the forward-backwards relationship between the front-facing moderator action log, and the backtracking discussions of prior forethought.

If Phinarose, for example, set the pin strategically into the quadrant concerning Rigidity (or Actuality), then what would it be to put yourself in the shoes of the player? How exactly do you measure the different distances? Or is it crazy to assume that there WON'T be recourse involving the very things that Jawapa has been talking about?

This is why I wanted to bring up the aftermath of what happened the last time it happened: remember when the chat functions weren't constructed in such a way that moderator interactions occurred irrespective of rules developed after the initial report was put forward BUT without submission? We thought we solved this by lifting the restrictions (technically speaking, we did solve it, but Nou had to set the revert anyway because of the database reformat, so that we could still actually make the changes before Master1's removal), but here we are again.

Fourthly, there's no way to actually do what Atilla's suggesting. Let me explain:

If you're a player, and you're just getting used to interacting on the user interface, what's comes next as the most important aspect of playing? The general action of dealing, firstly, with whatever need they already used. How, at this point, can we close down the domain when the lobby itself already does, as intended, what the restored code was built to do in the first place of having actually written in the exception rule? I'm not the expert on coding here obviously, but based on what we've been talking about all last year, there's no workaround for this. So is Phinarose correct?

These are just my thoughts, take them as you will.

Processor, Pingohits, N1KF, Kirby, Master1, Different55, Onjit, skullz17, Xenonetix

XxAtillaxX · 2017-04-12 21:27:25

MFL wrote:

Alright, let me weigh in here.
First of all, insofar as EE moderation was what it was once - and notwithstanding tangents besides the essence of action - there are three quadrants of four values at stake. This is not to say that jurisprudence is a discipline requiring a hierarchy of conceptual merit; in fact, most of what the Phinarose debate has brought forth into the front of the background is the forward-backwards relationship between the front-facing moderator action log, and the backtracking discussions of prior forethought.
If Phinarose, for example, set the pin strategically into the quadrant concerning Rigidity (or Actuality), then what would it be to put yourself in the shoes of the player? How exactly do you measure the different distances? Or is it crazy to assume that there WON'T be recourse involving the very things that Jawapa has been talking about?
This is why I wanted to bring up the aftermath of what happened the last time it happened: remember when the chat functions weren't constructed in such a way that moderator interactions occurred irrespective of rules developed after the initial report was put forward BUT without submission? We thought we solved this by lifting the restrictions (technically speaking, we did solve it, but Nou had to set the revert anyway because of the database reformat, so that we could still actually make the changes before Master1's removal), but here we are again.
Fourthly, there's no way to actually do what Atilla's suggesting. Let me explain:
If you're a player, and you're just getting used to interacting on the user interface, what's comes next as the most important aspect of playing? The general action of dealing, firstly, with whatever need they already used. How, at this point, can we close down the domain when the lobby itself already does, as intended, what the restored code was built to do in the first place of having actually written in the exception rule? I'm not the expert on coding here obviously, but based on what we've been talking about all last year, there's no workaround for this. So is Phinarose correct?
These are just my thoughts, take them as you will.

I think we just found a new post for /r/iamverysmart.

Pingohits, Evilbunny, Prodigy

Processor · 2017-04-12 21:51:51

MFL, that's a whole new level of crappost right there.

HeyNK · 2017-04-12 23:08:49

MFL wrote:

Wordswordswords

Good bait, you got a few responses.

mrjawapa

Abelysk · 2017-04-13 00:59:07

MFL wrote:

Alright, let me weigh in here.
First of all, insofar as EE moderation was what it was once - and notwithstanding tangents besides the essence of action - there are three quadrants of four values at stake. This is not to say that jurisprudence is a discipline requiring a hierarchy of conceptual merit; in fact, most of what the Phinarose debate has brought forth into the front of the background is the forward-backwards relationship between the front-facing moderator action log, and the backtracking discussions of prior forethought.
If Phinarose, for example, set the pin strategically into the quadrant concerning Rigidity (or Actuality), then what would it be to put yourself in the shoes of the player? How exactly do you measure the different distances? Or is it crazy to assume that there WON'T be recourse involving the very things that Jawapa has been talking about?
This is why I wanted to bring up the aftermath of what happened the last time it happened: remember when the chat functions weren't constructed in such a way that moderator interactions occurred irrespective of rules developed after the initial report was put forward BUT without submission? We thought we solved this by lifting the restrictions (technically speaking, we did solve it, but Nou had to set the revert anyway because of the database reformat, so that we could still actually make the changes before Master1's removal), but here we are again.
Fourthly, there's no way to actually do what Atilla's suggesting. Let me explain:
If you're a player, and you're just getting used to interacting on the user interface, what's comes next as the most important aspect of playing? The general action of dealing, firstly, with whatever need they already used. How, at this point, can we close down the domain when the lobby itself already does, as intended, what the restored code was built to do in the first place of having actually written in the exception rule? I'm not the expert on coding here obviously, but based on what we've been talking about all last year, there's no workaround for this. So is Phinarose correct?
These are just my thoughts, take them as you will.

But enforcing the quadrant in order to mitigate the stance between Phinarose and amalgamate proclamations by proposing a soliditary reinforcement might yield improper variability between recommendation.

My suggestion is to support a sixth sense, by borrowing available resources into establishing a link used for a deviate exclamation. By examining these stances one could assert the individual reckoning as an intimiate way to undulate our paths for contentment. Therefore the meaning of prevalence towards our homogeneities is almost certainly predisposed to our welcoming guest, Phinarose.

N1KF

hummerz5 · 2017-04-13 16:50:48

yeah someone made a good point

please, no more of the nonsense babble. FWIW, 2 pts spam warning is "Posting nonsensical or incomprehensible content. Or ads."

so I mean haha now stop

Tomahawk

Aoitenshi · 2017-04-14 05:56:02

Congratulations on becoming a moderator, Phina. As someone who's gone through hell administrating a Wikia with 500-600k hits everyday, this is what advice I can offer you:

You cannot please everyone. Stay professional, and know when to walk out of a discussion.

Good luck in the future.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 2017-04-09 10:15:01

Re: Plans as Moderator

#27 2017-04-09 10:16:43, last edited by Xenonetix (2017-04-09 10:22:22)

Re: Plans as Moderator

#28 2017-04-09 11:29:44

Re: Plans as Moderator

#29 2017-04-09 12:14:34

Re: Plans as Moderator

#30 2017-04-09 17:22:17

Re: Plans as Moderator

#31 2017-04-09 17:33:20

Re: Plans as Moderator

#32 2017-04-09 18:17:26, last edited by Master1 (2017-04-09 18:20:32)

Re: Plans as Moderator

#33 2017-04-09 18:39:12

Re: Plans as Moderator

#34 2017-04-09 18:53:29

Re: Plans as Moderator

#35 2017-04-09 20:44:09

Re: Plans as Moderator

#36 2017-04-09 21:01:19

Re: Plans as Moderator

#37 2017-04-10 23:34:39, last edited by Xenonetix (2017-04-10 23:35:32)

Re: Plans as Moderator

#38 2017-04-10 23:44:44, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2017-04-10 23:47:31)

Re: Plans as Moderator

#39 2017-04-11 21:30:56

Re: Plans as Moderator

#40 2017-04-11 21:46:19

Re: Plans as Moderator

#41 2017-04-11 22:05:21

Re: Plans as Moderator

#42 2017-04-12 00:12:13

Re: Plans as Moderator

#43 2017-04-12 20:17:37

Re: Plans as Moderator

#44 2017-04-12 21:24:16

Re: Plans as Moderator

#45 2017-04-12 21:27:25

Re: Plans as Moderator

#46 2017-04-12 21:51:51, last edited by Processor (2017-04-12 21:58:10)

Re: Plans as Moderator

#47 2017-04-12 23:08:49

Re: Plans as Moderator

#48 2017-04-13 00:59:07, last edited by Abelysk (2017-04-13 01:01:12)

Re: Plans as Moderator

#49 2017-04-13 16:50:48

Re: Plans as Moderator

#50 2017-04-14 05:56:02, last edited by Aoitenshi (2017-04-14 06:02:10)

Re: Plans as Moderator

Board footer