Dies to Removal

Wow, that is a jeffbcrandall sized wall of text.

Perhaps rather than running around in circles about the same general questions in hopes of getting the answers that you all seem to be looking for. It might be easier if each person were to get right down to it, and basically state their question again for the record, and then state the answer they are hoping to get (in full), and see what the mod in question has to say about that in particular. This, I presume would go a long way towards dealing with the roundaboutness of some of the questions asked, given the mods feel the questions have been answered, but the users disagree because they either havent heard what they were hoping to hear, the answers havent addressed a very specific thing the user was hoping to get a response to, or something else perhaps.

The general trend Ive seen from some (often the same groups of users, but not always) seems to be a general distrust of the mods to be able to do their jobs in an unbiased
manner. There also seems to be a belief that mod rulings and interpretations should be consistent across the entire forums (a reasonable expectation), however, due to the nature of different parts of the forums having different levels of requirements when it comes to strictness of the rules or differing rules sets, not always an easy thing to do. Asking for consistency is fine, we all want consistency, however it should be understood that certain parts of the site, for practical reasons, are going to be given more leeway than others (CI for example, often gets a ton more leeway than other parts of the site, due to the nature of trying to have open discussion of various CI topics, and Rumor Mill, simply due to the nature of what the Rumor Mill is, with Debate being more strict in order to try to foster a more constructive environment for debate and to keep it on topic (for a few examples). Part of the issue with demanding consistency, is if you try to apply a blanket level of rules enforcement to the entire
forums, you would end up with much less flexibility on behalf of the mods to not leave infractions, and thusly a significant increase in the amount of infractions given, as the ability of the mods to decide for themselves whether something perhaps wasnt in need of an infraction, would then potentially be removed, and it would simply be an infraction period (if you are hoping for a looser rule set and more freedom by the userbase in accordance with such forum-wide consistency, Im not sure you would actually get that.) The inevitable problem though, is due to the nature of the way things are run now, is that people see things being gotten away with in certain parts of the forums, and believe that its fine to do then in other parts, without properly reading the rules or otherwise, and thusly get annoyed/angry/otherwise when they find themselves with an infraction, because of the view of inconsistent handling, even if it may be in different areas of the forums. The other issue, is that there can often be
inconsistency in what users will report. The mods often rely, to a reasonable extent, on the user reports to make note of posts to look into, so while two posts may have the exact same issue, if one is reported and the other not reported, then the one not reported may never get attention, until, when the person who got reported and got an infraction brings up the lack of infraction for the same thing in another post, then the calls for consistency come in, in hopes of getting the infraction overturned, when in fact, it would lead to the other offending post getting infracted as well.

When it comes to arguing infractions, its actually a very common practice for the site/game/organization/etc to have the rule that only the person to whom the infraction was given can actually appeal that infraction and that others should stay out of it. I seem to recall an issue a while back in CI where inevitably a single user was chosen to represent the other users so that a potential resolution could be worked out, given
the environment that was fostered with a whole bunch of users made it difficult to get down to things and try to come up with resolutions because not everyone may agree on what they are hoping to get from the whole process. In the end, funnelling everything through one person made it much easier for all involved to deal with the situation. In the case of an infraction, its been asked, in a similar vein for people to funnel their thoughts and information on fighting the infraction through the person who received the infraction so that they, individually, can post in a helpdesk, or otherwise, to fight the infraction for themselves rather than having a mod have to deal with 4-5 other people getting in on the discussion in the helpdesk, and thus potentially clouding the real issue or taking away from the direct appeal that is trying to occur.

It can be frustrating, seeing someone potentially getting wronged, in your viewpoint, when you dont feel they deserve what they got. Often I find myself in a position of
trying to defend the mods, because I can understand the point they are trying to make or the viewpoint they may have, or simply see a bunch of people coming down on the mod in a way I dont agree with, and thusly step in, in an effort to help back up the mod from my own perspective and viewpoint. This isnt always the case though, Ive run into several times where Ive disagreed with the mod in question and joined in as a part of the group questioning the mod or the mods actions, though I always try to do so in as clear, concise and civil of a way as possible in order to try to create an environment where the mod wont feel like they are being attacked and in an effort to try to actually help deal with the situation or issue at hand.

It may be as simple as pointing out instances where there has been inconsistent handling of the same rule in the same section of the site, by pointing out that each time, the posts were reported, but not all got the same treatment, and simply asking "Why?" while linking
each example to show the potential inconsistency to help better understand what we as users should expect as far as that particular rule is concerned for that particular area. I tend to just automatically assume a harsher interpretation of the rules in order to assure that I never cross that invisible line, and so far thats worked fairly well for the last several years. Sometimes this means choosing my words carefully, not getting too emotionally charged with my words, taking a step back before hitting enter, and going back and reading my posts before submitting to make sure Im not saying something that could be interpreted wrong, whether in wording, tone or meaning. Many people, however, may find the need to have to go through such effort when posting, to be utterly rediculous, and would rather have the freedom to say whatever they want without having to worry about getting an infraction, I can certainly understand that perspective, but that could have the potential to get out of hand fairly quickly as well,
it can be rough trying to find that balance.

I would typically view the main part of CI as being a good place to discuss interpretations, consistency and clarifications of rules, as well as discuss the validity of the particular rules themselves. Whereas I often view the helpdesks moreso for appealing infractions, or asking more general non-rules related questions.

Perhaps it would be good if someone started a thread in CI to discuss the primary purpose of each part of the CI forums and where specific questions and discussions should go therein to make it more organized for all involved.

Anyhow, I have to get back to work, I know this post is insanely long and Ive been working on it for well over an hour now, but hopefully something good will come from posting it.

Poor Jeff, he never stood a chance.

Irony levels just spiked across the whole internet.

You didn't actually read that, did you?

You didn't actually read that, did you?

It's more about reading what he didn't say.

I did quickly... And I dont know where the fuck it was going... But I knew where I was going... To another page.

I promised Baguy's grandmom on her deathbed that I would never read another jeffcrandall post.

Dont worry you didnt miss much at all.

he really did promise her

For those of you who didn't want to decipher that script, it basically boils down to "We need more Bong Wang."

everyone needs more bong

Perhaps rather than running around in circles about the same general questions in hopes of getting the answers that you all seem to be looking for. It might be easier if each person were to get right down to it, and basically state their question again for the record, and then state the answer they are hoping to get (in full), and see what the mod in question has to say about that in particular. This, I presume would go a long way towards dealing with the roundaboutness of some of the questions asked, given the mods feel the questions have been answered, but the users disagree because they either havent heard what they were hoping to hear, the answers havent addressed a very specific thing the user was hoping to get a response to, or something else perhaps.

nThe general trend Ive seen from some (often the same groups of users, but not always) seems to be a general distrust of the mods to be able to do their jobs in an unbiased manner. There also seems to be a belief that mod rulings and interpretations should be consistent across the entire forums (a reasonable expectation), however, due to the nature of different parts of the forums having different levels of requirements when it comes to strictness of the rules or differing rules sets, not always an easy thing to do. Asking for consistency is fine, we all want consistency, however it should be understood that certain parts of the site, for practical reasons, are going to be given more leeway than others (CI for example, often gets a ton more leeway than other parts of the site, due to the nature of trying to have open discussion of various CI topics, and Rumor Mill, simply due to the nature of what the Rumor Mill is, with Debate being more strict in order to try to foster a more constructive environment for
debate and to keep it on topic (for a few examples). Part of the issue with demanding consistency, is if you try to apply a blanket level of rules enforcement to the entire forums, you would end up with much less flexibility on behalf of the mods to not leave infractions, and thusly a significant increase in the amount of infractions given, as the ability of the mods to decide for themselves whether something perhaps wasnt in need of an infraction, would then potentially be removed, and it would simply be an infraction period (if you are hoping for a looser rule set and more freedom by the userbase in accordance with such forum-wide consistency, Im not sure you would actually get that.) The inevitable problem though, is due to the nature of the way things are run now, is that people see things being gotten away with in certain parts of the forums, and believe that its fine to do then in other parts, without properly reading the rules or otherwise, and thusly get annoyed/angry/otherwise when they find
themselves with an infraction, because of the view of inconsistent handling, even if it may be in different areas of the forums. The other issue, is that there can often be inconsistency in what users will report. The mods often rely, to a reasonable extent, on the user reports to make note of posts to look into, so while two posts may have the exact same issue, if one is reported and the other not reported, then the one not reported may never get attention, until, when the person who got reported and got an infraction brings up the lack of infraction for the same thing in another post, then the calls for consistency come in, in hopes of getting the infraction overturned, when in fact, it would lead to the other offending post getting infracted as well.

When it comes to arguing infractions, its actually a very common practice for the site/game/organization/etc to have the rule that only the person to whom the infraction was given can actually appeal that infraction and that others should stay out of it. I
seem to recall an issue a while back in CI where inevitably a single user was chosen to represent the other users so that a potential resolution could be worked out, given the environment that was fostered with a whole bunch of users made it difficult to get down to things and try to come up with resolutions because not everyone may agree on what they are hoping to get from the whole process. In the end, funnelling everything through one person made it much easier for all involved to deal with the situation. In the case of an infraction, its been asked, in a similar vein for people to funnel their thoughts and information on fighting the infraction through the person who received the infraction so that they, individually, can post in a helpdesk, or otherwise, to fight the infraction for themselves rather than having a mod have to deal with 4-5 other people getting in on the discussion in the helpdesk, and thus potentially clouding the real issue or taking away from the direct appeal that is trying to occur.
n
It can be frustrating, seeing someone potentially getting wronged, in your viewpoint, when you dont feel they deserve what they got. Often I find myself in a position of trying to defend the mods, because I can understand the point they are trying to make or the viewpoint they may have, or simply see a bunch of people coming down on the mod in a way I dont agree with, and thusly step in, in an effort to help back up the mod from my own perspective and viewpoint. This isnt always the case though, Ive run into several times where Ive disagreed with the mod in question and joined in as a part of the group questioning the mod or the mods actions, though I always try to do so in as clear, concise and civil of a way as possible in order to try to create an environment where the mod wont feel like they are being attacked and in an effort to try to actually help deal with the situation or issue at hand.

It may be as simple as pointing out instances where there has been inconsistent handling of the same rule in
the same section of the site, by pointing out that each time, the posts were reported, but not all got the same treatment, and simply asking "Why?" while linking each example to show the potential inconsistency to help better understand what we as users should expect as far as that particular rule is concerned for that particular area. I tend to just automatically assume a harsher interpretation of the rules in order to assure that I never cross that invisible line, and so far thats worked fairly well for the last several years. Sometimes this means choosing my words carefully, not getting too emotionally charged with my words, taking a step back before hitting enter, and going back and reading my posts before submitting to make sure Im not saying something that could be interpreted wrong, whether in wording, tone or meaning. Many people, however, may find the need to have to go through such effort when posting, to be utterly rediculous, and would rather have the freedom to say whatever they want
without having to worry about getting an infraction, I can certainly understand that perspective, but that could have the potential to get out of hand fairly quickly as well, it can be rough trying to find that balance.

I would typically view the main part of CI as being a good place to discuss interpretations, consistency and clarifications of rules, as well as discuss the validity of the particular rules themselves. Whereas I often view the helpdesks moreso for appealing infractions, or asking more general non-rules related questions.

Perhaps it would be good if someone started a thread in CI to discuss the primary purpose of each part of the CI forums and where specific questions and discussions should go therein to make it more organized for all involved.

Anyhow, I have to get back to work, I know this post is insanely long and Ive been working on it for well over an hour now, but hopefully something good will come from posting it.

tl;dr

no one trusts mods to be unbias because they're bias

jeffbcrandall
Resident Planeswalker

Send Message User Lists Last Activity: Today 03:17 PM
Current Activity: Replying to Thread [Admin] votan's lounge

Do you guys think there's some sort of White Knights beacon they turn on in the mod lounge when things get ugly?

If there was, I would have noticed.

Also, sup.

Hey man, welcome

didn't even knew you still frequented magic boards, how's life?

Hey man, welcome

didn't even knew you still frequented magic boards, how's life?

I drop into MTGS on occasion, but I don't think I've posted outside of the Grrr thread in nearly a year. I saw my name came up in some CI thread recently about suggestion as an ombudsman over there or some position like that.

I'm doing pretty well. Grad school going well (conference papers getting accepted, first journal publication coming out next month), getting married this December too. Still not playing MTG, I've migrated to boardgaming at this point. Easier on the wallet, which is important for grad students who own houses.

The resurrection of Netrunner is awesome, though. Scratches some of the same MTG itch with deckbuilding and
whatnot.

how do people get into grrrrrrr on sally

how do people get into grrrrrrr on sally

Be either a current mod, or an ex-mod who left on good terms. The conversation on that thread can go by ludicrously fast, to the point where it might as well just be an IRC channel rather than a forum thread.

Easier on the wallet, which is important for grad students who own houses

Ouch. hope your future wife has a more stable income, because Academia isn't what it used to be. Though if you have the passion, its easier to endure.
Getting your first paper through the publishing process is also an important milestone. First author/wrote most of it?

Grats on getting ringed btw.

PS: Gee, Netrunner. You are Ancient aswell I see.

Yeah, she's doing pretty well career-wise, so we shouldn't have trouble getting by. We don't expect a super-rich quality of life anyway. It helps that our program has an amazing track record at getting Ph.D.s into jobs.

Unfortunately I'm 4th author out of 4 on the journal pub, so my name gets et al.ed in parenthetical citations. Given that it was the very first research project I ever got involved in as a masters student, I'll take it.

But I was first author on a major conference paper, and the second study we're starting in a couple of weeks on that research track will hopefully get us into a good advertising journal.

I never played the original Netrunner (though I'm certainly old enough to have), but I heard enough people rave about it that I decided to pick up a copy of the new LCG version. I was actually one of the first people to get them thanks to having an exhibitor badge at GenCon last year.

[quote=&
quot;Col. Khaddafi » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:42 pm"]

Easier on the wallet, which is important for grad students who own houses

Ouch. hope your future wife has a more stable income, because Academia isn't what it used to be. Though if you have the passion, its easier to endure.
Getting your first paper through the publishing process is also an important milestone. First author/wrote mot of it?

Grats on getting ringed btw.

PS: Gee, Netrunner. You are Ancient aswell I see.[/quote]

Well, being last on the article isn't always bad. When I talk about this with people I usually quote this strip from phdcomics, so I'd say you did well

how do people get into grrrrrrr on sally

Be either a current mod, or an ex-global/admin who left on good terms. The conversation on that thread can go by ludicrously fast, to the point where it might as well just be an IRC channel rather than a forum thread.

Fixed.

Also

Code: Select all

SELECT thread.* FROM thread WHERE thread.forumid = A OR thread.forumid = B OR thread.forumid = C OR thread.forumid = D

with A,B,C,D the id's of the gutter, gutter-pegging chamber, inner sanctum, and mystical holy cave.

where are our sql dumps?

If you want those you have to talk to Boubouille. Nothing has changed.
Please do understand that I still stand by the statement that you are mocking me with in your signature.
To this day "I would still like to see the posts sent over to ( N_S ) and have the Salvation Gutter archived away and replaced with a link to MTGC." We don't have any control over the SQL Dumps and never have. That went from Hannes to Curse, but if there is a way to put a link to MTGC in the Gutter I'm game. Where'd be a good place to do that? A non-expiring announcement in the Gutter? I new thread? What?

Even I lost patience Gal , tell Eugene not to worry about it , MTGC is separate now . Quit persecuting MTGC members.

Goodbye to you.

help help I'm being oppressed

*repressed

Hi Binary!

I like hwo voltan trolled pinkfloyd and didnt get infracted

And then jeff comes in with a 4000 word essay on why Ci is an issue

lol anyone who read that wall of text is an idiot

Gals everytime:

"Oh you have to ask boubs for the dumps"

Okay, I'll be sure to post in the mod lounge or get in contact with him some other way considering you mustn't have his email, AIM or some way of contacting

*repressed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU

That

was

the most amazing thing I have ever seen.

lol anyone who read that wall of text is an idiot

RobT says thank you!

I hope jeff thinks it was worth it.

damn my eyes glazed over when I saw that wall of shat

Will he ever get sick of white knighting?

#ExpiredCrandalls

Will he ever get sick of white knighting?

The ironic part, of course, is that he believes he's "grey knighting" instead, disagreeing with staff decisions because he agrees with them... when that is the case.