@Admins, What is the official boundary of Rule 2.18

[r_AdvocatusDiaboli0 861]

The rule itself is fine, but here are some questions and observations, I understand that the rule needs to exist for a community like ours.

 

 

2.18. - public discussions of moderators' and Administrators' activities.

 

• Does the rule apply to consultants? If yes, then why are they called consultants?
• As we are not allowed to criticize their decisions, can we criticize their opinions?
• Can this rule be applied if a moderator himself breaks one of his key rules being "I shall not discuss my actions in public"?
• Does the rule apply to discussions about recent bans without calling names, example being a topic named "Why do we get banned for ABC ?"

 

There are thousands of questions like that, the rule itself is ambiguous and we would love some clarification, the way judges clarify the constitutional laws. Also, it'd be nice if we can an official reply from the higher ups instead of the consultants on this. I think they might be biased xD!  :D

Edited July 2, 2013 by r_AdvocatusDiaboli0

[Playep 355]

Me myself don't understand too.

[KillerXenaRider 10]

if mod does something wrong we are just suppo

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

Also, it'd be nice if we can an official reply from the higher ups instead of the consultants on this.

Sorry but I was just passing, so I'll drop 2 sentences.

 

 

The following activities are not permitted in chat or the game forum:

- public discussion of moderators' and Administration's actions.

Administration includes the helpers aswell. Before it was saying 'Administrators' but Semyon changed it.

 

Russian version:

 

 

В чате и на форуме запрещены:

- публичное обсуждение модерации, а также действий администрации проекта.

2. - Запрещается и грозит (по усмотрению Администрации) временной или постоянной блокировкой чата и форума:

2.18. - публичное обсуждение модерации, а также действий администрации проекта.

 

 

What we need is just an edit on 2.18, so it can say 'Administration', not 'Administrators'

[r_AdvocatusDiaboli0 861]

No difference,

 

 

 

ad·min·is·tra·tion  

/ədˌminəˈstrāSHən/

Noun

The process or activity of running a business, organization, etc.

The people responsible for this, regarded collectively.

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

Well then the rules aren't written with a dictionary in the hand.

[r_AdvocatusDiaboli0 861]

That's your argument? Seriously....

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

Yes it is and I stop here, since it's pointless anyway.

Just wait for the 'higher up' and you'll get your answer :)

[r_AdvocatusDiaboli0 861]

So you just tried to piss me off? :/

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

No that's not my goal.

Let's continue in PM

Edited July 2, 2013 by FederalBureauFBI

[r_AdvocatusDiaboli0 861]

No. I'm satisfied with myself seeing how both the consultants bothered to downvote this.

 

 

Thanks for letting us know that you don't care about rule clarification because then you'd have to follow them too.

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

We don't care about rule clarification because it's already clarified.

You're the one that doesn't want to understand it. You're the one that, after losing his staff position, turned against us and tries to find holes in us. It's pathetic, you know.

 

Now I'm gonna get a sandwich, wish me bon apetit :rolleyes:

[SuperNick95 5,312]

No. I'm satisfied with myself seeing how both the consultants bothered to downvote this.

 

 

Thanks for letting us know that you don't care about rule clarification because then you'd have to follow them too.

Any answer to this topic would be influenced by personal opinion so, unless you are asking my personal opinion, I think I am not high enough to answer you.

The reputation thumbdown is due to the fact that such a question comes from a player who has been in the staff for two years.

 

PS: 

"I shall not discuss my actions in public"

 

Such a rule does not exist.

[r_AdvocatusDiaboli0 861]

Ganging up on me, lol

[skitee 555]

We don't care about rule clarification because it's already clarified.

What? >.< Those seven words are sufficient clarification? >.<

 

 

I'd like to add a few questions of my own to any administration members kind enough to join this conversation:

1. Does the "activities" include their actions outside their consulting/moderating?

2. Does this apply to reporters?

3. What if the mod/consultant/reporter asks for feedback?

4. Does this include PMs, which is part of the forum as well?

5. I once got banned using this rule because I was discussing this rule. http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=55931 Does this rule apply to those of us who discuss about the rules, such as this topic?

6. According to the phrasing of the rule, you can be banned for discussing contest organisation, for disagreeing with updates, for making a comment upon a staff member's personality, for giving constructive criticism about, say, the newspaper, for criticising the clan of a staff member, for stating that you dislike a weapon or that a weapon is unbalanced, and a whole host of other things. How far does it apply or is it left just to mod's discretion?

7. What safeguards are there against mods abusing their rights (for instance, once a mod banned players who told him that the clan which he created broke the rules (due to a lack of ten members) using this rule as justification)?

8. What is the express purpose of this rule? Is it to protect mods, to stop dissent, to make the forum seem positive even if it isn't, to enable the mods to drop the banhammer  more regularly, to give more chocolate to pigeons, or anything, what is the purpose of it?

9. Do you believe it benefits the community?

[cheese3000 23]

Already on max down-votes, just on 2 threads :/

 

I haven't seen this before, and I agree with what skitee says there. Why(was he), and how can you justify him being banned for that?

 

The rule should either be removed, or changed. In all the forums I have been in, all of them except this one allows users to give feedback on moderation(AFAIK, the CC(casual collective) had a whole sub-forum called "moderator feedback").

Raging against mods for being banned or something should be a bannable offence, but not discussing moderators actions.

 

Well then the rules aren't written with a dictionary in the hand.

And thats a excuse?

If they didnt check what the meanings of words are before they used them, that is not a excuse, thats a massive problem with the writer of the rules.

 

We don't care about rule clarification because it's already clarified.

Obviously not, there are a lot of players who dont know the actual meaning of the rule...

If only the mods know the rules, then how are players meant to keep them?

 

8. What is the express purpose of this rule? Is it to protect mods, to stop dissent, to make the forum seem positive even if it isn't, to enable the mods to drop the banhammer  more regularly, to give more chocolate to pigeons, or anything, what is the purpose of it?

No matter how I look at it the forum isn't positive...

The moderators should not need protection, nor should there be a rule in place to stop any attitudes of displeasure towards moderators and administration.

[RiseOfCucumber 651]

Go Kool ! you can do it :P Beat the mod !

[semyonkirov 29,038]

The rule itself is fine, but here are some questions and observations, I understand that the rule needs to exist for a community like ours.

• Does the rule apply to consultants? If yes, then why are they called consultants?
• As we are not allowed to criticize their decisions, can we criticize their opinions?
• Can this rule be applied if a moderator himself breaks one of his key rules being "I shall not discuss my actions in public"?
• Does the rule apply to discussions about recent bans without calling names, example being a topic named "Why do we get banned for ABC ?"

There are thousands of questions like that, the rule itself is ambiguous and we would love some clarification, the way judges clarify the constitutional laws. Also, it'd be nice if we can an official reply from the higher ups instead of the consultants on this. I think they might be biased xD!  :D

 

1. This rule applies to all the administration helpers, including consultants.

2. You can't discuss moderators in public if you are criticizing their decisions and opinions. As these two are usually connected.

3. Moderators don't discuss each other's actions in public but if that happened that wouldn't be against the rules as these rules apply to players, not assistants of administration.

4. No. But if someone doesn't agree with a ban he or she got this person should PM me Bruce as it would solve the problem much faster.

 

Generally the rule clearly says that you can'd discuss anything in public. You may discuss what you want using PM.

[KillerXenaRider 10]

why? not in public?

[cheese3000 23]

1. This rule applies to all the administration helpers, including consultants.

So reporters aswell?

So you cant say you disagree with what a reporter has said in a article?

 

2. You can't discuss moderators in public if you are criticizing their decisions and opinions. As these two are usually connected.

So, it is as bad as I thought...

Can you discuss rules in public, since unlike a moderator, they are not one persons decisions?

How can you say you are not allowed to criticise, or express disagreement with a moderators opinion?

 

 

3. Moderators don't discuss each other's actions in public but if that happened that wouldn't be against the rules as these rules apply to players, not assistants of administration.

Which rules only apply to players, not moderators?

 

Generally the rule clearly says that you can'd discuss anything in public. You may discuss what you want using PM.

If the "discussion" only involves 2 people, the moderator and player, its not that helpful, or that much of a discussion.

[skitee 555]

If the "discussion" only involves 2 people, the moderator and player, its not that helpful, or that much of a discussion.

Huge +1. :3 If it's one-against-one the person with the authority is never going to change their mind, if a few people all share their honest opinion and give their reasons they could understand and change their mind. :3

[semyonkirov 29,038]

I'd like to add a few questions of my own to any administration members kind enough to join this conversation:

1. Does the "activities" include their actions outside their consulting/moderating?

2. Does this apply to reporters?

3. What if the mod/consultant/reporter asks for feedback?

4. Does this include PMs, which is part of the forum as well?

5. I once got banned using this rule because I was discussing this rule. http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=55931 Does this rule apply to those of us who discuss about the rules, such as this topic?

6. According to the phrasing of the rule, you can be banned for discussing contest organisation, for disagreeing with updates, for making a comment upon a staff member's personality, for giving constructive criticism about, say, the newspaper, for criticising the clan of a staff member, for stating that you dislike a weapon or that a weapon is unbalanced, and a whole host of other things. How far does it apply or is it left just to mod's discretion?

7. What safeguards are there against mods abusing their rights (for instance, once a mod banned players who told him that the clan which he created broke the rules (due to a lack of ten members) using this rule as justification)?

8. What is the express purpose of this rule? Is it to protect mods, to stop dissent, to make the forum seem positive even if it isn't, to enable the mods to drop the banhammer  more regularly, to give more chocolate to pigeons, or anything, what is the purpose of it?

9. Do you believe it benefits the community?

1. No, it is only about their activities as moderators and consultants. It means bans, closing topics, etc.

2. What are the actions of reporters that you can discuss? Their articles? In this case public discussion is essential.

3. Then you are allowed to give him or her the feedback. It's better to use PM in this case anyway.

4. No, PMs are not public discussion so you can use it.

5. Rules are rules and they are unlikely to be changed unless it's necessary. So I see no point in that.

6. The rules clearly says that you can't discuss administration and staff actions. That's it. You can discuss weapons, contests and so on. You can discuss content and events but not actions.

7. There are admins for that. If you think that a mod banned someone for nothing or for something personal, tell about it to one of admins and this mod will be fired if you provide evidence.

8. It is aimed at making the forum more structured. If you don't like something about mods' actions you want it to be solved, right? Just discussing it is pointless. You don't discuss it when you hurt your knee you do something with it to stop bleeding, ease the pain. The same situation here.

9. Yes, I do as public discussion of bans, etc. is unnecessary. It makes the job easier for both admins and mods. If you don't like something you can always write a PM to an admin.

[r_AdvocatusDiaboli0 861]

Question: Are we not allowed to criticize or disagree to a consultant's consultation/opinion? (I didn't say a consultant's decision because a consultant does not have the right to pass judgement).

 

Really appreciate you clarifying.

 

 

5. Rules are rules and they are unlikely to be changed unless it's necessary. So I see no point in that.

Sometimes it is necessary to change one rule and break it up in two different parts just to get rid of ambiguity.

Edited July 2, 2013 by r_AdvocatusDiaboli0

[Bacia_Da_Boss 4]

Why is it that this forum is so strict and dictatorial compared to any other one?

It could barely even be called a forum, with discussions that get closed down in 2 minutes, no avatars, no signatures, and everything happening in off-topic.

[semyonkirov 29,038]

So reporters aswell?

So you cant say you disagree with what a reporter has said in a article?

 

Can you discuss rules in public, since unlike a moderator, they are not one persons decisions?

How can you say you are not allowed to criticise, or express disagreement with a moderators opinion?

 

Which rules only apply to players, not moderators?

 

If the "discussion" only involves 2 people, the moderator and player, its not that helpful, or that much of a discussion.

1. To understand the rule you need to understand what it was made for. In order to stop people from duscissing bans, closing topics and so on. You can express your opinion on articles.

2. Rules are decision of administration so you can't discuss them in public.

3. If it is just an opinion you can discuss it. If a mod says that freeze is weak weapon and you think otherwise you can discuss it. If opinion is related to decision you can't.

4. All the rules stated here: http://en.tankiwiki.com/Rules