Feedback on staff

[SpreadLoveNotHate 374]

This is pointless than. Player would rather have a topic to discuss ridiculousness of how you get ban sometimes.

If someone was banned and the reason was ridiculous, then you can PM with sufficient proof. He is chat administrator and should be contacted for any issues upon bans.

[canadarules 1,938]

It says "will" because the next time the player commits that violation they will receive a forever ban, If I'm not mistaken. If one cannot learn from the ban, then they why should they have the privilege to speak.  

 

It is not necessary to pick out any mistakes a staff member makes in public. Express that kind of feedback in PM or contact the appropriate manager for that staff member.

No, certain things mods should be able to see and understand how it is being said. Most things i see are sort of unfair. i mean where is the freedom of speech here

 

 

If someone was banned and the reason was ridiculous, then you can PM with sufficient proof. He is chat administrator and should be contacted for any issues upon bans. 

Pointless i already know that

[GoIdRock3 12]

You don't discuss bans here and don't discuss specific members of staff. But saying who are you favourite staff members won't harm anyone, will it?

Saying who your least favourite staff members are in your opinion, and what they could do to improve (politely), won't harm anyone either...

 

I'm struggling to understand why we're allowed to refer to staff when we want to compliment them, but not when we want to offer areas where they could improve.

 

Anyway, we can discuss it in private, so this topic can get back on track. Thanks for your explanation ^_^

[DynamiteBang 119]

It says "will" because the next time the player commits that violation they will receive a forever ban, If I'm not mistaken. If one cannot learn from the ban, then they why should they have the privilege to speak.  

 

It is not necessary to pick out any mistakes a staff member makes in public. Express that kind of feedback in PM or contact the appropriate manager for that staff member.

It doesn't say if it is from that ban or from any ban. It isn't refering to a specific broken rule, from which you will get it a forever ban.  It just bluntly says 'next ban will be FOREVER'. It should say next ban of the same offence should be forever, or next ban MAY be forever. It isn't refering to a specific ban, as I said earlier. It should be more precise other than scaring someone, that they will be banned forever just if they spam, or write in capitals which is usually a small ban. They could just leave their account because of it, or just leave tanki.

[Remaine 4,687]

Hmm, it does get a bit perplexing when staff ban people for breaking a rule.

For example, Rule 2.1 is "insulting other users, sending provocative messages via chat, disturbing other chat user's communication, swearing..."

Now, that covers a lot of aspects when it come to offences, all in one rule.

I'm not saying the rules should be rewritten so there's a different rule for each specific offence but what I would ask is for the mods to, when they're elaborating on why someone is banned, narrow it down to what the person actually did OR alternatively bold out what they did wrong in another colour. It makes things clearer for all of us. It lets us know what we specifically get to get banned if we were to get banned. At the same time, the duration of the people here, when they break a rule, they don't break the whole rule, do they? (not saying nobody HAS or WILL do it) 

Edited October 24, 2013 by Remaine

[semyonkirov 29,038]

Thank you for your feedback, perhaps this rule needs to be divided into several more specific ones, we will look into it together with admins.

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

Hmm, it does get a bit perplexing when staff ban people for breaking a rule.

For example, Rule 2.1 is "insulting other users, sending provocative messages via chat, disturbing other chat user's communication, swearing..."

Now, that covers a lot of aspects when it come to offences, all in one rule.

I'm not saying the rules should be rewritten so there's a different rule for each specific offence but what I would ask is for the mods to, when they're elaborating on why someone is banned, narrow it down to what the person actually did OR alternatively bold out what they did wrong in another colour. It makes things clearer for all of us. It lets us know what we specifically get to get banned if we were to get banned. At the same time, the duration of the people here, when they break a rule, they don't break the whole rule, do they? (not saying nobody HAS or WILL do it) 

I agree, I actually have been trying to ask moderators and Consultants what Rule 1.15 is if it's not 2.1. Some send me to "Game Rules" which is an ignorant answer considering I always tell them, "I was going though the game rules,..." and I obviously know what the rule says, but what an example of it that wouldn't be part of Rule 2.1 is what I'm searching for.

 

EddyBeGood said "NOOB" wouldn't be, but "Stupid Noob!" would be. I said "Wouldn't that be the same thing as rule 2.1 as the offender had spoke the word "stupid" which is an insult thus disobeying Rule 2.1? If Rule 2.1 is in there, what honestly is the point of Rule 1.15. 4 days he has left me unanswered, when he consistently answers me everyday. My point is that "Why is Rule 1.15 (and so many other rules) existent, when we have Rule 2.1?

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

If Rule 2.1 is in there, what honestly is the point of Rule 1.15

1.15. - discriminating against inexperienced players (noobs): misinformation, harassment, mocking;

Which would mean

Some low rank: 'hi guys I'm new please tell me how to shoot' ->Some 'pro': 'hahahah what a noob he can't shoot'

Some low rank: 'anyone knows how to get cry?' ->Some 'pro': 'noob how can you not know such a basic thing'

Some low rank: 'how to turn my turret?' ->Some 'pro': 'press alt+f4'

etc

 

While

2.1. - insulting other users, sending provocative messages via chat, disturbing other chat users' communication, swearing;

Is pure insults and swearing, doesn't include mocking or misinforming new players - there's a seperate rule for that

 

So if you call someone a 'stupid noob', you'll get punished on rule 2.1. If you misinform and mock new players - 1.15.

Edited October 26, 2013 by FederalBureauFBI

[POWERFULLSOUL 78]

No Mod is replaying in FAQ ... i asked a Q no replay for that :angry:

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

1.15. - discriminating against inexperienced players (noobs): misinformation, harassment, mocking;

Which would mean

Some low rank: 'hi guys I'm new please tell me how to shoot' ->Some 'pro': 'hahahah what a noob he can't shoot'

Some low rank: 'anyone knows how to get cry?' ->Some 'pro': 'noob how can you not know such a basic thing'

Some low rank: 'how to turn my turret?' ->Some 'pro': 'press alt+f4'

etc

 

While

2.1. - insulting other users, sending provocative messages via chat, disturbing other chat users' communication, swearing;

Is pure insults and swearing, doesn't include mocking or misinforming new players - there's a seperate rule for that

 

So if you call someone a 'stupid noob', you'll get punished on rule 2.1. If you misinform and mock new players - 1.15.

Thank-you, I understand what it means now. Thank-you for the 3 examples and how it works. Next time I have a question about anything I'll ask you ;)

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

Mods need to be consistent with the banning; if you're only to ban someone for insulting a mod, ban someone for insulting a member too. I've noticed that people are getting away with insulting members yet when they do it to mods, they're getting week/month bans, etc.

Let me explain this to you. There is not always a moderator present. So, when a moderator is not present, and someone insults another member, then the player cannot be banned right on the spot because there's no moderator to ban it.

 

          Do you want there to be justice on the player? I do too, and so what I do is I'll take a screenshot, process it to my files, then to my computer, then to a picture website, and finally to this forum via a private message to a chat moderator. If you want to give it to a chat moderator, I HIGHLY recommend PC-JACK (but also give some to other chat moderators, because I don't want PC-JACK to get too much work) and the moderator will ban the player. However, let's say two guys are chatting, and one of them receives a ban for a violation. The friend of that guy doesn't like that, thus insulting the moderator. Well, a moderator is certainly present in that case and will ban the player who insults the moderator. 

 

             My point is, is that a moderator will definitely ban a player who insults another member IF he's there, but can't ban him if he's not. However, a moderator is usually present when someone insults him, so he will always ban it then. However, a moderator is not always present when a member insults another member so it's up to you to help ban the player ;)

[Xerothermic 44]

Let me explain this to you. There is not always a moderator present. So, when a moderator is not present, and someone insults another member, then the player cannot be banned right on the spot because there's no moderator to ban it.

 

          Do you want there to be justice on the player? I do too, and so what I do is I'll take a screenshot, process it to my files, then to my computer, then to a picture website, and finally to this forum via a private message to a chat moderator. If you want to give it to a chat moderator, I HIGHLY recommend PC-JACK (but also give some to other chat moderators, because I don't want PC-JACK to get too much work) and the moderator will ban the player. However, let's say two guys are chatting, and one of them receives a ban for a violation. The friend of that guy doesn't like that, thus insulting the moderator. Well, a moderator is certainly present in that case and will ban the player who insults the moderator. 

 

             My point is, is that a moderator will definitely ban a player who insults another member IF he's there, but can't ban him if he's not. However, a moderator is usually present when someone insults him, so he will always ban it then. However, a moderator is not always present when a member insults another member so it's up to you to help ban the player ;)

I should probably add to "arguing" to that previous post because really, that's more what I meant.

 

The same can apply to moderators not being present when a member insults them. You can't even assume a mod is usually there when being insulted. There's varying circumstances that can make it so the mods can't be there ranging from simply offline, AFK, etc. I obviously want there to be justice hence my previous post and I know what to do too, thank you very much but it never works out. I remember PM'ing *mod that won't be named* reporting them arguing and flooding and nothing happened. Not long after, I PM *another mod that won't be named* after for a mini spat that probably ended before I sent the PM and when they see it, they're in big trouble. 

 

Another example is when I had a small argument with husto and I got banned for a week because of it. It wasn't even longer than 5 posts. Later, I had a massive argument with felixbond. We went on for pages and pages and two/three mods had to deal with it - we only got warnings. Point is, mods seem to squash anyone who dares defy them, especially when they're not dominating the argument. "I can't win this argument so I'll just ban them to stop it" is the mindset for a lot of the moderators and while that's not necessarily the problem, they need to have that same mindset when dealing with members.

 

And don't assume the "friend of that guy" won't like that their friend got banned because I know people that have no feelings for their friend getting banned because they felt it was completely fair.

 

The duration of what you've tried to dictate to me is going on unreasonable assumptions. However, I'll continue trying to help them. Just that when they see it, they need to dish out the same justice. 

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

 I remember PM'ing *mod that won't be named* reporting them arguing and flooding and nothing happened. Not long after, I PM *another mod that won't be named* after for a mini spat that probably ended before I sent the PM and when they see it, they're in big trouble. 

 How do you assume nothing happened? Did you pm them again and ask them? I do know a moderator that I personally pmed, and he didn't reply. Does that mean nothing happened? No, I asked him "Did you do anything" and he said "Of course, I'll never let a report slip by as I receive crystals". So, if they read it, and don't reply. Ask them (if they closed the pm, then open another with that topic and your complaint) why they didn't reply, and tell them, for future reference, to reply when you send a pm to them. If they continue to not send you a reply, move on to another moderator. 

 

 Another example is when I had a small argument with husto and I got banned for a week because of it. It wasn't even longer than 5 posts. 

Was this in a pm? If it was, then you should ABSOLUTELY tell EddyBeGood, Semyon, or help@tankionline.com. A moderator should never ban you if you're discussing their actions privately, unless there's another violation.

If it wasn't in a pm, and you were discussing his actions, then you should be banned as you are violating the rule about publicly discussing a staff's actions. 

 

Another example is when I had a small argument with husto and I got banned for a week because of it. It wasn't even longer than 5 posts. Later, I had a massive argument with felixbond. We went on for pages and pages and two/three mods had to deal with it - we only got warnings. 

First off, just some healthy advice, felixbond is a troll, and a general rule in life is to never argue with trolls (the argument usually goes nowhere). However, if you went on for pages and pages in a topic, then you're violating Rule 2.15. You deserved a warning there. 

 

Point is, mods seem to squash anyone who dares defy them, especially when they're not dominating the argument. "I can't win this argument so I'll just ban them to stop it" is the mindset for a lot of the moderators and while that's not necessarily the problem, they need to have that same mindset when dealing with members.

Moderators are humans, and usually humans don't like losing arguments. However, you can't be banned for arguing with a moderator, unless you're violating Rule 2.18 or Rule 2.14.  If you are banned for simply arguing with a moderator, immediately talk to EddyBeGood or help@tankionline.com for consultation. If the moderator made a bad call on punishing you, he himself will be punished.

 

And don't assume the "friend of that guy" won't like that their friend got banned because I know people that have no feelings for their friend getting banned because they felt it was completely fair.

I'm sure you do, I know people who laugh at their friends who get banned. That's why I used it as an example when I said "let's say...", I wasn't making a sweeping generalization. 

 

You may post on this topic, however this small discussion is going off the topic of the OP. Please pm me your next reply. If you don't, I'll just pm you my reply to that post. :)

Edited October 28, 2013 by JonathanBernatowicz

[Xerothermic 44]

 How do you assume nothing happened? Did you pm them again and ask them? I do know a moderator that I personally pmed, and he didn't reply. Does that mean nothing happened? No, I asked him "Did you do anything" and he said "Of course, I'll never let a report slip by as I receive crystals". So, if they read it, and don't reply. Ask them (if they closed the pm, then open another with that topic and your complaint) why they didn't reply, and tell them, for future reference, to reply when you send a pm to them. If they continue to not send you a reply, move on to another moderator. 

 

Was this in a pm? If it was, then you should ABSOLUTELY tell EddyBeGood, Semyon, or help@tankionline.com. A moderator should never ban you if you're discussing their actions privately, unless there's another violation.

If it wasn't in a pm, and you were discussing his actions, then you should be banned as you are violating the rule about publicly discussing a staff's actions. 

 

First off, just some healthy advice, felixbond is a troll, and a general rule in life is to never argue with trolls (the argument usually goes nowhere). However, if you went on for pages and pages in a topic, then you're violating Rule 2.15. You deserved a warning there. 

 

Moderators are humans, and usually humans don't like losing arguments. However, you can't be banned for arguing with a moderator, unless you're violating Rule 2.18 or Rule 2.14.  If you are banned for simply arguing with a moderator, immediately talk to EddyBeGood or help@tankionline.com for consultation. If the moderator made a bad call on punishing you, he himself will be punished.

 

I'm sure you do, I know people who laugh at their friends who get banned. That's why I used it as an example when I said "let's say...", I wasn't making a sweeping generalization. 

 

You may post on this topic, however this small discussion is going off the topic of the OP. Please pm me your next reply. If you don't, I'll just pm you my reply to that post. :)

I'm not assuming nothing happened, he TOLD me nothing was gonna happen even though he acknowledged to me that they were arguing and flooding. So no, I'm not assuming anything and don't you assume that I assume like you seem to like doing. At least think about it. Also, I obviously PM them or if not, check the thread to see if they've been banned. When I PM the mods about violations, they're almost sure to reply because they have no reason to NOT reply. 

 

This argument we had was not in a PM and for god's sake, will you stop assuming? What is it I've said that makes it reasonable to deduce I was discussing his actions? We simply had a nasty argument over Wasp (the hull) and I got in trouble for it. And once again, it never went longer than 5 posts.

 

We were aware that we were violating the rules and we (at least, I) knew a ban was going to come sooner or later. You're not listening to me clearly. I don't need to know what rules I violated or anything like that - it's irrelevant. With an argument like that (which was over a record) we were supposed to get bans for such a nasty argument yet we only got warnings. When I argue with a mod, I get banned. It's clearly against the rules to argue in such a manner so why is it when I do it with a mod, I get in trouble and why is it when I had an even worse argument with a member, nothing more than a warning comes? The same justice needs to be dished out.

 

I don't care if they don't like losing arguments. If we're in one and you want to stop, simply don't reply. That lets me know you don't want to continue and I'll stop. When I argue with mods, it's never about either of those subjects but I'm still in trouble. Believe me, I've already tried going there but all they do is simply repeat the same thing - "Hello! You were banned for serious violation of rules" and it keeps posting that until you give up. It's almost as if it's a bot.

 

Okay, maybe it was an example but it was a really bad one and it completely failed to get your point across. You used ambiguous language which caused me to interpret that in a way that you weren't implying - your own fault.

 

The reason why this may seem off-topic is because I've posted this in the wrong thread. This was actually supposed to go in "Feedback on staff" not "Ideas and suggestions" so that's just my bad. A mod can move these posts there and the discussion can continue or something.

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

Another example is when I had a small argument with husto and I got banned for a week because of it.

Stop lying. Your ban was for discussing staff's actions, trolling and insults. All of that formed the week ban.

 

With an argument like that (which was over a record) we were supposed to get bans for such a nasty argument yet we only got warnings. When I argue with a mod, I get banned.

Arguing is one thing, discussing what a mod does and his knowledge (connected to your ban) is a completely different thing. For the first one you got only a warning (be happy) for flaming. For the second one (together with around 5 posts of trolling/insults) you got a week ban. This is it.

 

[Xerothermic 44]

 

Stop lying. Your ban was for discussing staff's actions, trolling and insults. All of that formed the week ban.

 

Arguing is one thing, discussing what a mod does and his knowledge (connected to your ban) is a completely different thing. For the first one you got only a warning (be happy) for flaming. For the second one (together with around 5 posts of trolling/insults) you got a week ban. This is it.

 

I don't recall ever discussing his actions and I don't recall trolling - but yes, there were insults, I think. Where on earth would I need to discuss his actions when arguing about the hull Wasp? I've never said I haven't discussed his actions in another previous argument (which I probably got banned for) but I'm talking about the example I was using. No actions were discussed. You've either gone to the wrong ban or I've made a mistake when posting my examples - either way, I'm not "lying" like you put it. Way to jump the gun.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Xerothermic

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

I don't recall ever discussing his actions and I don't recall trolling - but yes, there were insults

I understand you don't remember, we can't remember everything :) However ban wasn't given 'just cause', it was given for the 3 reasons I mentioned, if you want to see the proof PM me or a chat mod.

 

Where on earth would I need to discuss his actions when arguing about the hull Wasp? I've never said I haven't discussed his actions in another previous argument (which I probably got banned for) but I'm talking about the example I was using. No actions were discussed.

In the ban proof Wasp is not mentioned anywhere, probably it was another post.

 

 

You've either gone to the wrong ban or I've made a mistake when posting my examples

Sorry, I wasn't the one that banned you, but anyway, as I said ban was legit.

 

either way, I'm not "lying" like you put it.

 "Another example is when I had a small argument with husto and I got banned for a week because of it."

Sorry again, maybe it's just me..but I think when something is not true, then it's a lie (just my opinion). What you said isn't true, so, from my point of view, it's called a lie.

Anyway, it seems you just don't remember for which exact post you got banned and I understand that :)

Edited October 28, 2013 by FederalBureauFBI

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

I'm not assuming nothing happened, he TOLD me nothing was gonna happen even though he acknowledged to me that they were arguing and flooding. So no, I'm not assuming anything and don't you assume that I assume like you seem to like doing. At least think about it. Also, I obviously PM them or if not, check the thread to see if they've been banned. When I PM the mods about violations, they're almost sure to reply because they have no reason to NOT reply. 

 

This argument we had was not in a PM and for god's sake, will you stop assuming? What is it I've said that makes it reasonable to deduce I was discussing his actions? We simply had a nasty argument over Wasp (the hull) and I got in trouble for it. And once again, it never went longer than 5 posts.

 

We were aware that we were violating the rules and we (at least, I) knew a ban was going to come sooner or later. You're not listening to me clearly. I don't need to know what rules I violated or anything like that - it's irrelevant. With an argument like that (which was over a record) we were supposed to get bans for such a nasty argument yet we only got warnings. When I argue with a mod, I get banned. It's clearly against the rules to argue in such a manner so why is it when I do it with a mod, I get in trouble and why is it when I had an even worse argument with a member, nothing more than a warning comes? The same justice needs to be dished out.

 

I don't care if they don't like losing arguments. If we're in one and you want to stop, simply don't reply. That lets me know you don't want to continue and I'll stop. When I argue with mods, it's never about either of those subjects but I'm still in trouble. Believe me, I've already tried going there but all they do is simply repeat the same thing - "Hello! You were banned for serious violation of rules" and it keeps posting that until you give up. It's almost as if it's a bot.

 

Okay, maybe it was an example but it was a really bad one and it completely failed to get your point across. You used ambiguous language which caused me to interpret that in a way that you weren't implying - your own fault.

 

The reason why this may seem off-topic is because I've posted this in the wrong thread. This was actually supposed to go in "Feedback on staff" not "Ideas and suggestions" so that's just my bad. A mod can move these posts there and the discussion can continue or something.

First off I'd like to say this, do you mind calming down? As for our argument, let's get back to it

That's very weird, moderators will usually not ban someone for flooding if it's a report, however, because it's a very minor violation. Arguing is not necessarily wrong at all, as we're doing it in this topic, but flaming is (Rule 2.4). I've never actually reported someone for flaming, so I don't know how that works with my favorite moderator, PC-JACK. Do NOT get me wrong on this issue, I am NOT assuming anything, just being aware of all possibilities. I believe flaming is about the same amount of a violating as trolling is, so if he acknowledged they were flaming and did nothing, tell EddyBeGood immediately with a screenshot of the pm because that should never be happening.

 

What is it with you and assuming?! I'm not assuming anything, just looking at all possibilities, helping you with all possibilities, etc. May I see the argument? To define whether or not you were flaming? Because I honestly don't know. If you weren't flaming (Once again, I'm not assuming, just looking at all the possibilities and helping you) and you're sure you did nothing wrong, tell Semyon, eddy, or the help desk. Moderators cannot ban one for arguing, but can for flaming (Rule 2.4). :)

 

Ahhhhh, okay, okay, I see what you mean. I know someone who was flaming and only got banned for a day, but that was for 1 page. I don't understand that, actually. However, I only tell what I hear, and I'm not an official Consultant, so I am unable to answer that circumstance. In that case, you are correct to say that you and felix should have received bans instead of warnings. 

 

I do in fact have the SAME issue with the help desk, and am very angry at it. I would give Semyon a screenshot and tell him, however I can't as I put the conversation in the trash. Do you still have the conversation? Maybe you can bring the issue up to Semyon who is very fair in his deeds. 

 

I do not see how I used ambiguous words, they seem very clear to me. "Let's say..." is a synonym of "For example" or "e.g." so I honestly don't understand why you were so confused by that. 

 

A forum moderator (Probably FBI, idk) was nice enough to move it. Thanks mod :)

Edited October 28, 2013 by JonathanBernatowicz

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

May I see the argument? To define whether or not you were flaming? Because I honestly don't know.

If you're talking about the argument between him and felix, then you can't, all of it got removed.

 

As for the part (which you've just removed from your post) on 'tell me the name of the mod who warned you, he didn't do his job' - actually, our whole team discussed the Remaine/felix argument, together with the forum admin and at the end decided to give only a warning. Both of them should be happy for that

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

If you're talking about the argument between him and felix, then you can't, all of it got removed.

Ah, okay

 

As for the part (which you've just removed from your post) on 'tell me the name of the mod who warned you, he didn't do his job'

I did remove that as what I has said wasn't right. It was wrong for me to say that, apologies.

 

our whole team discussed the Remaine/felix argument

I guessed this guy was Remaine. 

 

the end decided to give only a warning. Both of them should be happy for that

Agreed.

Edited October 28, 2013 by JonathanBernatowicz

[Xerothermic 44]

I understand you don't remember, we can't remember everything :) However ban wasn't given 'just cause', it was given for the 3 reasons I mentioned, if you want to see the proof PM me or a chat mod.

 

In the ban proof Wasp is not mentioned anywhere, probably it was another post.

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't the one that banned you, but anyway, as I said ban was legit.

 

 "Another example is when I had a small argument with husto and I got banned for a week because of it."

Sorry again, maybe it's just me..but I think when something is not true, then it's a lie (just my opinion). What you said isn't true, so, from my point of view, it's called a lie.

Anyway, it seems you just don't remember for which exact post you got banned and I understand that :)

I don't think I've seen the mods add the specific thing we've argued about so I can understand why it wouldn't be there. Unless you're referring to another place you see the reasoning of the bans. You've said "ban proof" so I think you were referring to something else. Now, I acknowledge there was a big mistake in one of my examples of my previous bans but the rest of my points still stand. No proof is required because it all makes sense. 

 

First off I'd like to say this, do you mind calming down? As for our argument, let's get back to it

That's very weird, moderators will usually not ban someone for flooding if it's a report, however, because it's a very minor violation. Arguing is not necessarily wrong at all, as we did it in that topic, but flaming is (Rule 2.4). I've never actually reported someone for flaming, so I don't know how that works with my favorite moderator, PC-JACK. Do NOT get me wrong on this issue, I am NOT assuming anything, just being aware of all possibilities. I believe flaming is about the same amount of a violating as trolling is, so if he acknowledged they were flaming and did nothing, tell EddyBeGood immediately with a screenshot of the pm because that should never be happening.

 

 

What is it with you and assuming?! I'm not assuming anything, just looking at all possibilities, helping you with all possibilities, etc. May I see the argument? To define whether or not you were flaming? Because I honestly don't know. If you weren't flaming (Once again, I'm not assuming, just looking at all the possibilities and helping you) and you're sure you did nothing wrong, tell Semyon, eddy, or the help desk. Moderators cannot ban one for arguing, but can for flaming (Rule 2.4). :)

 

Ahhhhh, okay, okay, I see what you mean. I know someone who was flaming and only got banned for a day, but that was for 1 page. I don't understand that, actually. However, I only tell what I hear, and I'm not an official Consultant yet, so I am unable to answer that circumstance. In that case, you are correct to say that you and felix should have received bans instead of warnings. Ask FederalBureauFBI, he should be able to answer, idk. May you please tell me the forum moderator that only gave you warnings? I'm not going to tell the moderator anything or anybody else, just want to know so I can identify him as a moderator who didn't do his job. 

 

I do in fact have the SAME issue with the help desk, and am very angry at it. I would give Semyon a screenshot and tell him, however I can't as I put the conversation in the trash. Do you still have the conversation? Maybe you can bring the issue up to Semyon who is very fair in his deeds. 

 

I do not see how I used ambiguous words, they seem very clear to me. "Let's say..." is a synonym of "For example" or "e.g." so I honestly don't understand why you were so confused by that. 

 

A forum moderator (Probably FBI, idk) was nice enough to move it. Thanks mod :)

 

I'm perfectly calm on this end. I don't know what makes you think I'm "mad" or "butthurt". There's no insults, flames or nothing. This is a perfectly serious discussion on a controversial issue. If you call this an argument then...w/e. 

 

2 things - I don't know why you're speaking in the perspective of a moderator or why you think moderators won't punish because the violation is minor. The mod didn't even warn the violators or anything but just locked the thread. Whether a violation is minor or major, something needs to be done about it. If they're supposed to warn/ban for such a violation, IDK but they're supposed to do SOMETHING about it and while locking the thread stops the problem, they didn't get a reprimanding or anything.

I've reported to SuperNick95 about when SamothebestforgotPW was flooding on the CS thread and he gave him and warning and edited all his posts to say - "SamothebestforgotPW has been warned. Reason: Flooding (Bear in mind, there was more to that reasoning)

 

I still feel we aren't arguing but are debating but that's just my view. If the whole mod team discussed the argument in the "mod hut" it would be reasonable for you to assume that argument had all of the above in it. I personally thought we were both flaming in it. Maybe what I perceive to be "flaming" and what the mods perceive "flaming" to be are different things. And you are assuming - you say you're helping me but really, you're not actually considering certain circumstances that may come and you're totally jumping to conclusions. That's what with me and assuming. And on that subject, while it's not assuming itself, it's the idea of you unreasonably doing it consistently.

 

You seem to understand that other example so there's nothing to say there. However, as said in FBI's post, the team came with the decision to give out warnings - it's unfair and impossible to pin-point out just one.

 

The conversations are still there and I'll do it for future references. That's the one thing I'm actually gonna take from you when it comes to your "advice."

 

Let's not be silly - "Let's say" is not a synonym of "For example". If you really want to say they're synonyms then you've got it wrong; what would be more legitimate is "For example, if". If you use "let's say" you're going to go on to a scenario while with "For example" you're using actual examples. "For example, if" would also mean you're going to go on to a scenario. 

 

One would think it's FBI considering he replied not long after it happened.

 

Overall, I think this has spiralled into something completely irrelevant. All I ask is that the mods be consistent when banning people - it really isn't much.

 

If you're talking about the argument between him and felix, then you can't, all of it got removed.

 

As for the part (which you've just removed from your post) on 'tell me the name of the mod who warned you, he didn't do his job' - actually, our whole team discussed the Remaine/felix argument, together with the forum admin and at the end decided to give only a warning. Both of them should be happy for that

It actually went that far? While I am happy for it, I still feel there's too much leniency given there. You saw that argument was pretty major. I wouldn't have complained because I was expecting a ban originally.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Xerothermic

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

2 things - I don't know why you're speaking in the perspective of a moderator or why you think moderators won't punish because the violation is minor. The mod didn't even warn the violators or anything but just locked the thread. Whether a violation is minor or major, something needs to be done about it. If they're supposed to warn/ban for such a violation, IDK but they're supposed to do SOMETHING about it and while locking the thread stops the problem, they didn't get a reprimanding or anything.

I thought you meant someone else flooding in a server lobby chat, rather than forum. If someone is flooding in the forum, then I agree something needs to be done about it. If someone was flooding in a server lobby chat and 2 days have passed since the guy flooded, do you think the guy deserves a 5 minute ban? I completely agree with you that if someone floods in the forum, they deserve a warning.

 

I still feel we aren't arguing but are debating but that's just my view. 

I have that view as well, sorry for mixing the two terms up.

 

 

Let's not be silly - "Let's say" is not a synonym of "For example". If you really want to say they're synonyms then you've got it wrong; what would be more legitimate is "For example, if". If you use "let's say" you're going to go on to a scenario while with "For example" you're using actual examples. "For example, if" would also mean you're going to go on to a scenario. 

I still disagree. But for future references, I won't say "Let's say.." to you or anyone on this forum, but it makes complete sense to me. If I'm saying "Let's say...", I'm saying "Let us take this example here and say it as an example." That's how I see it, I'm sorry that I said it as you don't have the same view. Next time I'll use "For example". :)

 

 

All I ask is that the mods be consistent when banning people - it really isn't much.

I agree it should be that way. I don't understand why warn the players in one scenario, when you banned others for a week in the same situation. It's hypocrisy as I see it. Be consistent, moderators.

 

Sorry Remaine that I didn't help much. I'm don't have all the facts on Tanki and other subjects and I apologize that I gave you some wrong answers and jumping to a couple conclusions. 

Edited October 28, 2013 by JonathanBernatowicz

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

I don't understand why warn the players in one scenario, when you banned others for a week in the same situation.

There are many things you don't understand, things that are only for moderators and are only said in their rules and guidelines.

For example this thing - you think that mods are giving random bans, someone will just warn, while the other one will give a week just because his food fell on the floor and he's in a bad mood - well, that's not true. Firstly, the ones that give random bans get fired.

 

Now about 'why someone gets a warning, the other one gets a ban' - well, it depends on player's karma. You can't give someone a week for flood straight away (unless he's one of those trolls who some days ago copy-pasted the same picture 100 times through the forum). If you got a warning while someone else got a ban - it means his karma was worse than yours, that he has gotten many penalties for the same reason before so now he needs a longer ban.

Edited October 28, 2013 by FederalBureauFBI

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

There are many things you don't understand, things that are only for moderators and are only said in their rules and guidelines.

For example this thing - you think that mods are giving random bans, someone will just warn, while the other one will give a week just because his food fell on the floor and he's in a bad mood - well, that's not true. Firstly, the ones that give random bans get fired.

 

Now about 'why someone gets a warning, the other one gets a ban' - well, it depends on player's karma. You can't give someone a week for flood straight away (unless he's one of those trolls who some days ago copy-pasted the same picture 100 times through the forum). If you got a warning while someone else got a ban - it means his karma was worse than yours, that he has gotten many penalties for the same reason before so now he needs a longer ban.

I completely understand about karma and things of that sort. Are you saying though that while a minimum ban for trolling with the best karma is a week, while the minimum ban for flaming when the karma is great is a warning? Also, is there a certain reason forum moderators put something like this, "Player (name here) has been banned for a week. Reason: Trolling/Flaming". As far as I see it, trolling and flaming are two difference things. Why do some moderators do that?

[FederalBureauFBI 2,881]

Are you saying though that while a minimum ban for trolling with the best karma is a week

Noone said that, there are people with day bans for that (last on 23. October), hour or even warnings.

 

Also, is there a certain reason forum moderators put something like this, "Player (name here) has been banned for a week. Reason: Trolling/Flaming". As far as I see it, trolling and flaming are two difference things. Why do some moderators do that?

Most moderators do it. Instead of having 2 reasons in our program, by default (for a long time) it's combined into one, so trolling or flaming, reason still stays trolling/flaming. So usually the mods don't type manually the command, but do it through the program, using the default reason. Anyway, http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=182584&page=10&do=findComment&comment=3212907 if it happens, it will probably apply to all reasons.