Concerns about moderation conduct

General discussions about the Particracy Classic including role-play planning and suggestions.

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby Pragma » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:12 pm

I'm starting to wonder if the problem is the people or the structure of the game. I feel like we have arguments like this regardless of who is moderator. Is it time for some pretty fundamental changes to the way the game is run? We have to do something to keep PT alive and I don't think blaming each other is the way to do it. That's not to say I think everyone shares equal responsibility for our current problems and feels like some individuals are particularly unwilling to act cooperatively. We can't make things better if it just becomes about getting rid of particular people. It hasn't mattered much in the past who is in or who's out. At various points in the past two years, I have thought that getting rid of Auditorii or Mr God or someone else as mod would solve our problems and it really didn't.
Image Vascanian Empire
User avatar
Pragma
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:29 pm
Location: your mother

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby jrandle8 » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:16 pm

@Pragma I agree with you 100%.
民族自由黨 (National Liberty Party) in Yingdala & House of Yu Clan (Active)
jrandle8
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:31 pm

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby DueWizard70 » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:20 pm

jrandle8 wrote:According to Section 1.3 of the game rules, it specifically states that the discussion of any actions taken by Moderation concerning a player being sanctioned, warned, or any other such as banned, are forbidden and that such requests or questions regarding those actions are to be made privately to Moderation or Wouter, the game owner. This is followed by Section 5.2 and Section 5.3(d) that gives Moderators such right, and I am of course interpreting this as a judge would (welcome to my world...it sucks I know). While I wouldn't specifically use Section 5.3(d) in this case due to some minor language in the context that it is used, it would still apply.


Yes, this is indeed in the game rules, but as it happened with James's sudden 1-week ban and Rob's and Drax's RP being deleted with not much explanation from Moderation, there is little support for 1.3. I, for one, would support it being removed. Holding Moderation accountable (regardless of who is in the mod team) is important.



I agree with Pragma that there is something that needs to be done to keep this game alive. I have been here for just a little over a year, yet I have seen my fair share of shouting contests between players. I honestly don't know what could be done, but if this doesn't change the game will die.
Popular Novus Alliance Kundrati -INACTIVE (4731-4889)
Institutional Reform Party Baltusia-INACTIVE (4889-4896)
Demokratische Hosianer von Dorvik Dorvik-INACTIVE (4908-4918)
Third World Controler of Utembo(4851-)
User avatar
DueWizard70
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:04 am
Location: Mexico

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby jellybean » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:21 pm

Thanks for responding, Jack.

jrandle8 wrote:According to Section 1.3 of the game rules, it specifically states that the discussion of any actions taken by Moderation concerning a player being sanctioned, warned, or any other such as banned, are forbidden and that such requests or questions regarding those actions are to be made privately to Moderation or to Wouter, the game owner. This is followed by Section 5.2 and Section 5.3(d) that gives Moderators such right, and I am of course interpreting this as a judge would (welcome to my world...it sucks I know). While I wouldn't specifically use Section 5.3(d) in this case due to some minor language in the context that it is used, it would still apply.


I disagree with this rule. We've had this conversation before, when Moderation took the extremely unusual step of retconning RobMark and Drax's roleplay. They made the right decision then and eventually gave some clarification on why they had made the ruling (although I couldn't find the thread - probably just my error).

Transparency is vital in moderation. By staying silent, Moderation gives fuel to speculation and deprives us of the opportunity to avoid being banned ourselves by learning what triggered a ban. Again, I didn't see Aquinas say or do anything worthy of a ban. From my perspective, it certainly appears as though he were just removed from the game because Vesica finds him personally annoying. I could be wrong - but I would like to hear from Moderation. This perception is certainly strengthened by Vesica just deleting Aquinas' reasonable questions about his ban from Discord and his complaints about another player. Aquinas, for his part, has said that he was not given any reason for the ban, or even told how long it would last. Transparency is really the core issue of why I'm complaining: if Aquinas really was banned just for being annoying to Moderation, then why would I bother continuing on if I too might be ripped out of the game for being on Moderation's bad side? (And I have to imagine they're not going to be too happy with me for this post, although I have nothing against Vesica or Chitin as persons.) Silencing dissent from players is no way to foster a community.

jrandle8 wrote:Chitin has college work and Vesica has a real job and kids to take care of. We can't continue looking at Moderation as if they're not real human beings with real lives. I know that's not what many of you think or believe but it seemsas if you want moderation to be at your beck and call 24/7. And I say all of this respectively.


I absolutely agree with you, and I certainly don't think that either Vesica or Chitin should put Particracy above their work, school, or family commitments. I'll admit I would like to see response times improved, but that's not such a big gripe and I wouldn't have made this post if that was my only - or even my main - complaint. My concern is not so much that Vesica and Chitin are busy (although I would hope that they would step down independently if they felt they were too busy to moderate effectively), but that they moderate inconsistently, delete player comments, appear to favor certain players, and simply ignore questions or criticisms even while responding to other moderation requests.

jrandle8 wrote:I just don't think this comment is appropriate and that this action should be taken for two reasons; 1) It's your opinion (which you are entitled to) and we should not act on people's opinions, and 2) Players demanding moderators to resign does not end well for the player base. Trust me, I've seen what it could do.


I am confused as to why nobody should act on opinion. Any comment that could be made about Moderation, whether positive or negative, is an opinion. However Moderation chooses to act will be based on somebody's opinion. I have absolutely no authority in Particracy, and anyone is free to ignore me completely. My opinion is just that - my opinion. If Moderation ignores me or deletes this thread, I have no standing to continue complaining about it. I will just choose not to play the game, because I believe that for a roleplay game to work, it must have higher standards. I would also rather not continue to put in effort only to find myself suddenly banned one day. Again, I have no authority, and no one is obligated to change anything just to make me happy.

jrandle8 wrote:But, thank you jellybean for raising this issue and allowing for public comments to be made. I truly respect you for it and those of you whose views are opposing to mine. I hope that my opinions, and presented facts from the rules, can be well-received as the other comments have been.


I respect you too, and I really do thank you for joining in the conversation.
Last edited by jellybean on Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
jellybean
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:49 pm

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby jellybean » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:23 pm

Pragma wrote:I'm starting to wonder if the problem is the people or the structure of the game. I feel like we have arguments like this regardless of who is moderator. Is it time for some pretty fundamental changes to the way the game is run? We have to do something to keep PT alive and I don't think blaming each other is the way to do it. That's not to say I think everyone shares equal responsibility for our current problems and feels like some individuals are particularly unwilling to act cooperatively. We can't make things better if it just becomes about getting rid of particular people. It hasn't mattered much in the past who is in or who's out. At various points in the past two years, I have thought that getting rid of Auditorii or Mr God or someone else as mod would solve our problems and it really didn't.


Unfortunately I think part of the issue is just that roleplaying games are likely to cause conflict as we sometimes disagree on what constitutes fair roleplay. That said, I would absolutely endorse some change to the game structure that would address the problems here and let everyone save face. Do you have anything in mind?
User avatar
jellybean
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:49 pm

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby jrandle8 » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:23 pm

DueWizard70 wrote:Yes, this is indeed in the game rules, but as it happened with James's sudden 1-week ban and Rob's and Drax's RP being deleted with not much explanation from Moderation, there is little support for 1.3. I, for one, would support it being removed. Holding Moderation accountable (regardless of who is in the mod team) is important.


Oh I agree. I don't support this rule to an extent to be quite honest with you. Maybe once Moderation begins discussions for changing the rules, we could collectively lobby for changing this rule for certain cases notwithstanding banning.
民族自由黨 (National Liberty Party) in Yingdala & House of Yu Clan (Active)
jrandle8
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:31 pm

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby Pragma » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:28 pm

I can't say I have a singular recommendation about changes to the game, but they do have to be far-reaching. I would like to see a significantly larger moderation team, personally - but that's just one of the things that needs to change. I think we should have an involved community discussion about changes we'd like to see and decide as a community. We have to band together if we want this game to live, many have blame to share - me more than most in fact! It starts with not assuming everyone is acting maliciously and recognising that this is not about just one of us.
Image Vascanian Empire
User avatar
Pragma
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:29 pm
Location: your mother

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby Pragma » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:30 pm

This may be cringe kind of like this shitty little corner of the internet, it's a nice creative outlet and it's worth putting at least a bit of effort into.
I guess that's not a very cool thing to say in a community where everyone seems to hate each other...
Image Vascanian Empire
User avatar
Pragma
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:29 pm
Location: your mother

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby Kubrick » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:31 pm

does no justice to the conversation at hand and honestly is xenophobic at best...respectively saying. I've been on the receiving end of such comments from people like kub and Aquinas before and honestly, it's not healthy. If you don't like playing "fairly" with people from another county, either 1) quit playing, or 2) Moderation should just suspend you, because it honestly make it seem as if its an American vs British thing, which it most certainly isn't. As soon as two people from North America were appointed to the Moderation Team, there has been many comments like the one Kubrick made. Luckily for guys like that, I'm not on the moderation team. I'm sure that if I was, I would be 100% effective as I am.

But, thank you jellybean for raising this issue and allowing for public comments to be made. I truly respect you for it and those of you whose views are opposing to mine. I hope that my opinions, and presented facts from the rules, can be well-received as the other comments have been.


And there the first member of the militia is! Thank you for proving my point. Didn't even know Chitin was North-American by the way, it was aimed at three toxic Americans that keep harassing people like Rob and Aquinas in the Discord server and whereas Rob and Aquinas keep getting (or kept, since you managed to drive them away) warned for responding you all seem to get.. nothing and can just carry on. A toxic death squad sanctioned by moderation.

Also I don't see how I am "playing fairly" with any of you (since when are OOC disputes labelled as a game?) and neither am I British. I take offense to that as well by the way, wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy to be a Brit. Very Europhobic for you to assume that every non-American is British.
zanz = bad
User avatar
Kubrick
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:47 pm

Re: Concerns about moderation conduct

Postby jrandle8 » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:35 pm

@jellybean I don't think you'll be banned for speaking out against moderation. They're not that petty lol.

jellybean wrote:I am confused as to why nobody should act on opinion. Any comment that could be made about Moderation, whether positive or negative, is an opinion.


Concerning this comment, I would use the "people are innocent until proven guilty" phrase. Just like a court of law, people's opinions are counted as hearsay, not factual, and will be inadmissible. I believe the same applies here. I know for certain that as a moderator, I don't look at what counts as being inadmissible, but rather, I look at the facts, the same as a judge would. That's how we make the tough decisions in a smart and effective way that does less damage. That's all I was saying.

So in this case, I believe that calling for his resignation was just an opinion that should not be acted upon because you didn't present a "case" worthy enough to be admissible. Now, if your "case" presented facts and evidence, then yeah, it could be admissible, until then I think everyone should consider it an opinion based on emotion and not clear facts.

jellybean wrote:I disagree with this rule. We've had this conversation before, when Moderation took the extremely unusual step of retconning RobMark and Drax's roleplay. They made the right decision then and eventually gave some clarification on why they had made the ruling (although I couldn't find the thread - probably just my error).


I too had a debate with moderation on voice chat about this rule. While I understand why it is there, I don't think it serves the good of the community as a whole. But, given that its a rule, moderation must obey the rules and are forbidden from openly discussing moderation's actions towards another player as stated in the rule and it goes vice versa.
民族自由黨 (National Liberty Party) in Yingdala & House of Yu Clan (Active)
jrandle8
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests