Debating the rules.

[skitee 555]

According to MadDog21, the rules are here to protect us and make the game "pleasurable and safe" for all players:

 

The rules are easily accessible to every Tanker. Also' date=' they're reasonable, well conceived, just and, above all, respectful. They are simple declaratives to assure anyone who isn't mature or sensible enough to know and/or understand mannerly deportment may learn by reading. Tanki's creators continue to seek making Tanki play pleasurable and "safe" for all ages, respectful, enjoyable and fair. These are the standards every Tanker accepts when making an account. You promised to obey the rules, the TOS (Terms of Service) Honorable persons keep their word, their contract. [/quote']

 

And all the rules do follow this lead. All of them are for the benefit of the community. Except one. One rule, and one rule alone, personally just doesn't seem to be protecting the tankers, the players, or giving them what is right. All it does is that it seems to be limiting us common people and giving us a large disadvantage.

 

For example, at one point this topic was locked due to flood from random dudes. I complained about the fact that topics get locked when the OP doesn't want them locked, and gave my topic as an example. It was locked within minutes.

 

Another example. We were having some good discussions on this thread. But some were discussing moderators work, and they were all deleted and the thread was locked. All the helpful discussion we had been having was now gone.

 

And yet another example. Chriswu complained about the Third Lieutenant and under rule that there is for clans, giving his clan as an example. Because he gave his clan as a major example, it was taken as complaining against the mods' work, which it might have been. The thread was promptly locked, despite everybody supporting the main issue (the complaint against the rule, which is not against the rules).

 

Now, here is the time for me to tell you one MAJOR thing. I am not complaining against the mods who locked these threads. They were only doing what they were paid to do: ensure the rules were followed. If I was complaining against these mods who locked the threads, I would be breaking the rules. But I am not.

 

I am only complaining against the rule that the mods are forced to ensure is kept: namely, as found in the rules:

 

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

 

This rule is the one that caused three helpful threads to be locked. And this is the one that I am complaining about.

 

At present, this is a rule, so breaking it would be something I would not want to do whatsoever, for numerous reasons (I don't want a ban, I honour the mods' authority, and I know it is right to respect authority because God tells me to). Sometimes I have broken these rules, and been punished.

 

But this is certainly not my point. My point, instead, is this: What is the point of this rule?

 

Why is it here? Does it achieve much? Ok, so it stops useless, swearing, and nooby flooders who troll every mod's decision that goes against them. But that is against other rules, namely, trolling, disrespect and flooding (2.2.6, 2.2.14 and 2.2.3 in the rules). Topics can be locked for those crimes anyway, without needing the extra rule 2.2.14. But when it comes to serious, honest, mature, and sensible questioning of a moderator's actions, where can we do it?

 

If we PM Flanagun (the admin), then what happens? Nobody other than the admin knows that we complained, and it won't affect many people. The person who is complaining will not get any +1s and will look like they are fighting alone against an admin: who wins? It's not hard to realise who wins the argument if it is not clear (and it wouldn't be) that the complainer has a vast amount of public support behind them.

 

Another option is that we could PM the mod himself. But the mod in question is hardly going to admit they got it wrong, would they? I know that personally, if I were a mod and someone complained about my action, my initial response would be "noob, why complain? You got banned. Now shut it. I got it right, and I never get it wrong.". That might not be all mod's response, but the mod certainly wouldn't be all that open to outright criticism of their actions. It would have to be a very compelling case to convince the mod otherwise. And not all of us have the gift of writing with such ability. Most of us wouldn't be able to come anywhere near convincing the mod they got it wrong.

 

So what is our other option if complaining about a mod's actions? We could post it on the forum. And even if it is a very reasonable complaint, what's going to happen? A mod (not evem necessarily the mod in question) will lock it, and will have every reason to lock it. In fact, it would be wrong not to lock it.

 

So what then? What do we do? Do we let unfair bans go untouched? Do we let bad moderators go without any punishment? I know the moderators' work is reviewed by the administration, but do us, the common people, get any say in it? After all, the way the administration would look at a mod's work is very different from the way the commoner would look at the same work.

 

But basically, those questions were rhetorical questions. There is no option for us to do anything. We have no choice but to back down and let bad modding take place. I mean, what can we do without breaking the rules or looking weak in our complaint?

 

So, I'm asking for this rule to be revoked or at least reworded, allowing some kind of discussion about a moderator's work on the forum. I know that we need to keep the moderators in a respected place and that too much criticism can lose that position, but seriously... at the moment, there is no way, absolutely no way whatsoever in which we can do anything to fight against a biased/outrageous/misinterpreting ban. Something has to be changed to incorporate this into the rules, for at present it is just plainly not fair.

 

So what should the admins do? I personally would like this rule to be deleted and just to get "rage" ban complaints to be deleted. However, a rewording of this rule to incorporate "sensible" (according to the moderators' discretion) complaints be allowed as well.

 

What do you think? Should this be changed? Why/Why not?

 

In my humble opinion,

~skitee~

 

To mods: by the way, I see no reason in any of the rules (and I double-and-triple read both the rules and my post to make sure) how I am breaking any of the rules. If I am, for some reason, could you please tell me which, where, and how, in PM (So I can edit my post to take that section out) instead of locking my thread, it would be much appreciated and would also enable more healthy discussion on this issue to continue.

[Lhamster 4,081]

I agree exactly with you. :thumbup: Not being able to discuss what the people in authority are doing makes it seem like a dictatorship.

[CaMoUBePeHa9I 0]

I give you a little hint: in every game many mods are dictators))

The question is whether thats really a problem...

[swordfish12 12]

mods have dictators.....nice to know :P

[hogree 4,179]

I agree with you on the whole topic skit. I think that it is totally outrageous that we have no right to argue on a simple subject about mods, without getting our topic locked, and a possible ban. I am totally for you on this point. :thumbup:

[Krakoviensis 18]

Player skitee has been banned for a week. Reason: public discussions of moderators' and Administrators' work - read again Rules

 

Violations :

 

3.8. - Continue discussing topics that have been locked or deleted by the Administration.

 

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

 

Topic Closed .

[jonathanjoseph 71]

Player is already banned for Ignorance of Violators  section rules in the Forum