Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Deathblade
Who decides who is "in good standing" and not biased?

Who decides JohnnyMulti860 isnt allowed? I mean, if it is an obvious multi, it should already be banned.

What about Rams friends Goat, Bull, Chicken, Sheep, and Kangaroo? Won't they clearly be biased? How do you determine who people's friends are?

Good question. We could let them be chosen in the same basic process that mods are. Pick a few people who contribute to the forums, dont get banned or get in flame wars, have them be the less biased parties.

Anyone that doesnt meet the above criteria can't post. I didnt mean a literal multi, I was just reaching for a name there. Lets call him dotmaster5000 instead

Also a fair question, hopefully solved by the first bit. If good enough users are chosen, hopefully they back out of arguments where they're conflicted toward or against the user in question, or at least let the bias go and give an opinion. The main idea here is to let more than just 1 mod and 1 admin rule over a perceived violation, banning the person immediately and having a guilty until proven innocent but oh wait you've already been banned the 5 days it said even though we just overturned it deal going

I have to get off now, have an early class tomorrow, but I hope this constructive criticism keeps going hopefully with more people and a mod or 2 weighing in

Originally posted by rams78110
Good question. We could let them be chosen in the same basic process that mods are. Pick a few people who contribute to the forums, dont get banned or get in flame wars, have them be the less biased parties.

So...basically what a Lead Moderator is? How long until "the jury is corrupt and inconsistent"?

The buck has to stop somewhere.

You're either having the admins select the person who it stops at, or having the suspended user select it. Either way it is going to have some biases and inconsistencies, and users will be unhappy whenever they don't agree with themselves being suspended, which with some users is pretty much never.

But as I said, I have no problem with more transparency.

Make the appeals publicly viewable if the user approves via a checkbox on the page or something. It will at least hold the lead mods accountable for leaving it sit.

And yes, the appeal process should be faster.

But that can be achieved by having more (and more active) lead moderators, rather than additional layers of complexity. Even then, the lead mods are volunteers, so it's not like you can strongarm them into quickly responding to appeals. Best case scenario an employee like Pallow has the job of answering appeals every day.

meh for many of the stated reasons -1 to OP

+1 to DB who took the long way around, while finally getting to " the appeals process should be faster"

Originally posted by Greywolfmeb
meh for many of the stated reasons -1 to OP

+1 to DB who took the long way around, while finally getting to " the appeals process should be faster"



You do realize that you just -1'd an OP and +1'd another poster for saying exactly the same thing yes? I said the appeals process needed to be faster twice in the OP

Originally posted by Deathblade
Yeah...setting up a court case and jury for every forum suspension sounds like a ridiculous nightmare and pretty fucking stupid. People need to grow up if they want a trial for a 2-3 suspension from posting in a browser based football simulation MMO.


Maybe if that was the case, they would think twice before they ban people? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Originally posted by rams78110
You do realize that you just -1'd an OP and +1'd another poster for saying exactly the same thing yes? I said the appeals process needed to be faster twice in the OP

No, I -1 all the other stupid and unnessary bullshit you posted in ITT just to say speed up appeals.


Edit: stupid phone

Originally posted by Greywolfmeb
No, I -1 all the other stupid and unnessary bullshit you posted in ITT just to say speed up appeals.


Edit: stupid phone

So you're opposed to having a better, transparent discipline system?

Originally posted by rams78110
So you're opposed to having a better, transparent discipline system?

no but what you are suggesting isn't better it is just a way to open up the door to get alot of people butthurt and crying foulplay because they do not agree that they should get a ban when they break the rules. all this is simple if you break a rule expect to catch a ban. we all have access tot he rules of forum posting. so be smart and stay within the rules and you have nothing to worry about in the first place. and if you break the rules have a backbone and accept the punishment for your stupidity.

Originally posted by Deathblade
And yes, the appeal process should be faster.

But that can be achieved by having more (and more active) lead moderators, rather than additional layers of complexity. Even then, the lead mods are volunteers, so it's not like you can strongarm them into quickly responding to appeals. Best case scenario an employee like Pallow has the job of answering appeals every day.

+1 to this

-1 to the part where the OP wanted to bring in an opposing bias to combat the current bias. We already have that in US politics. It doesn't work.

Originally posted by rams78110
So you're opposed to having a better, transparent discipline system?

Don't break the rules and you don't have an issue. However, as far as I'm concerned the process doesn't need anything changed except your appeal should never take 2-3 days to hear.

how mods deal with posters is totally different than how admins deal with cheaters, multis, etc. and can't be lumped together. OP needs to separate these issues.

+1 to faster, more transparent system for appealing the actions of over-zealous mods. -1 to public trial by jury for forum bans if that's what OP intends. unnecessary and overly burdensome

Originally posted by rams78110
You are either trolling or just being an idiot. In either case, please stop spamming my thread.

Hes right. This is a terrible idea.