To Petra since you locked it and since I didnt feel like...

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

replying to the thread last night when I had the chance.

<blockquote><hr>

You talk as if the 'no discussing mod actions' applies only to Siege.

It doesn't, it applies across the board.

Mods shouldn't be allowed to post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok... so you brought up the paradox I highlighted. Since none of you Kelmo/Mod sympathizers could figure it out... here's how it goes down.


As a mod, if you want to post and be a part of the community by giving your opinion on matters, injecting your bias (because yes, you do have bias towards people you know... it's even admitted in the post when the ramifications of having a non-biased unaffiliated mod involved was described)

Then expect people to discuss your actions on this forum. If you want to not post and stick to straight moderating... then yes, we should all shut up and let you do your job without any respite.

However, if you're going to post, give your opinions, try and wave the Siege flag on this forum or others (like kelmo does when issues are brought up to the Devs) you are one of us... and therefore subject to the same ridicule, scrutiny of your behavior, so on and so on that ALL of us are subject to.

You cannot pick and choose what RoC rules you feel like following so long as it suits you... I'm sorry hun but, things don't work that way. Nope, no way no how... it's not going to happen.

Either you moderate without bias on the sidelines out of the picture... or you accept that this rule is going to bend just like many others do here because of the precarious situation this forum is governed under.

So, like I said... you can't have your cake and eat it too just like the rest of us can't and if it is a wish to be among us in this community, then you have to accept the fact that you will be judged the same as we all are.

If I do things the community doesn't appreciate... are you telling me they have no right to let me know publicly?!?!? Or do you think just because you get a shiny little badge next to your name it somehow graduates you into someone special free from reprieve? Well then give me a badge so I can do what I want without a word to the wiser too... and while your at it... hand them out to everyone else too!

Again... no hun, it's not going to happen.

For example:

Orvago isn't a member of this community... he doesn't post here and we don't even like him to (and he even knows we don't want him here!) So when he steps in... unless his actions are completely unreasonable, theres not a damn thing we can say about it... because he's not a part of this community.

So AGAIN, either follow his lead and moderate from the sidelines in solace or face the fact that you will from time to time need to justify yourself to this community... as a member of it.

Just like I and everyone else has at one point or another.

~BR

PS. Since this is a discussion aimed at building community... it's more appropriate for the public to discuss this, rather than your suggestion to discuss it privately.

 

[Kat SP]

As I understand it, we can disagree with and debate a moderators opinion expressed on this forum and anything having to do with said moderator, in game, presuming it doesn't break the RoC. They are not immune to our opinions on such things.

What we cannot discuss are the actions a moderator takes during the course of moderating this forum. Those issues are to be handled privately, with whomever we see fit.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

We can disagree with and debate a moderators opinion expressed on this forum and anything having to do with said moderator, in game, presuming it doesn't break the RoC. They are not immune to our opinions on such things.

What we cannot discuss are the actions a moderator takes during the course of moderating this forum. Those issues are to be handled privately, with whomever we see fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because if there is bias... then what is to say that their actions aren't driven by bias too?

Who or what is keeping their bias in check?

I know for sure that not being affiliated with this community would produce no bias... what else would you suggest?!?

Hypothetically, for example: (since we know the RoC is allowed to be bent here within reason)

What if we debated with Kelmo and he got pissed off at one of us who aren't his friends... then directly after the debate over his opinions...

Kelmo seems like he's being more "forgiving" to those in his guild or his friends when they bend the RoC but, is less "forgiving" to those who are his enemies when they bend the RoC just as much or even less than his friends....

How is that not crappy moderating!?!?!?!!?

and who or what in the hell is keeping this in check!?!?!

we have been and now we're being told we're not allowed to? so tell me...

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?!?

Oh wait... your Kelmo's Guildmistress! Now it makes sense why you'd spew the same garbage in order to cover this up... why would you want to keep this in check? It only works in your favor if it isn't!

I get it now... good post Kat!

 

[Guest]

Balance is indeed a tricky thing.

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

Balance is indeed a tricky thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed!

And I'd also like to say for the record... that I think Kelmo is a fantastic mod.

But, because we've had crappy mods who were supposedly a part of this community like... Savannah who would punish people just because she didn't like them... this is EXTREMELY necessary.


I also want to say that just because people get frustrated doesn't mean it's ok to throw away much needed checks and balances... because we all are human after all... and even mods cross the line.

I've always been in favor of outlining our ADDED expectations of eachother on this forum (since they are different than all the other forums on stratics) so they can refer to them easily in case there is questions brought up about their behavior as Mods.

If people can't justify what they do... then they shouldn't be doing it.

That is balance!

 

[imported_MoonglowMerchant]

I think Kelmo does a good job and there isn't anyone that I would rather have moderating this forum.

Cut him some slack. He isn't perfect. No one is.

He has a difficult job and he does it pretty damn well.

 

[Guest]

Not trying to sway anyones opinion this way or that way but.....

Even though we may not see it in the forums there are checks and balances in place. While not every post made by a moderator is reviewed, when they make an action using thier moderator functions it is reviewed at one point by someone outside this forum. Maybe not immediately but it does. So there is a non-bias individual looking down into the moderators doings.

Do I agree with all that is. No. LOL I never do.
I will not get into what I think, only state this as a fact for all to consider.

 

[Kat SP]

<blockquote><hr>

Kelmo seems like he's being more "forgiving" to those in his guild or his friends when they bend the RoC but, is less "forgiving" to those who are his enemies when they bend the RoC just as much or even less than his friends....


[/ QUOTE ]

100% Untrue. If I, or others in my guild could discuss that without breaking the RoC, we would. All I can say here is that you should not assume that you know what actions have or have not been taken against his guildmates.

<blockquote><hr>

How is that not crappy moderating!?!?!?!!?

and who or what in the hell is keeping this in check!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Admins and other mods, thats who.

<blockquote><hr>

Oh wait... your Kelmo's Guildmistress!

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction: I am not his Guildmistress, he a part of our leadership council.

Besides, that is a weak and petty argument. There are also other moderators tending this forum who have no ties to TnT/MYTH, whatsoever. I suppose they are bias, too? Did you not read that EVERY moderator on Stratics receives a notification every time a poster hits the mod button? Kelmo isn't the only one who see's them. If he were to have a moment of bias and chose not to take action against a guildmate, that doesn't mean another moderator or admin, wouldn't. Here lies the balance.

Also, as much as I know you will refuse to entertain the thought, Kelmo tries very hard to keep TnT/MYTH and Stratics issues separate. It isn't an easy task, for sure, whether its him or another mod having to take action against one of us.

 

[Rykus]

<blockquote><hr>

Who or what is keeping their bias in check?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the function of the unbiased (they don't post or play here) administrative Stratics staff. This seems OK to you by your next statement.

<blockquote><hr>

I know for sure that not being affiliated with this community would produce no bias... what else would you suggest?!?

[/ QUOTE ]
<blockquote><hr>

Kelmo seems like he's being more "forgiving" to those in his guild or his friends when they bend the RoC but, is less "forgiving" to those who are his enemies when they bend the RoC just as much or even less than his friends....

How is that not crappy moderating!?!?!?!!?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your use of the word seems put this statement squarely in the category it belongs, which is opinion, not fact. I consider Kelmo a friend, and I have been in a guild with him since about day 2 or 3 on Siege. He has not neglected his duties to send me PM's when I've said something inappropriate. Why are you not railing against Majorwoo? It seems the same would apply considering his affiliations with KoC.

<blockquote><hr>

and who or what in the hell is keeping this in check!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]
The unbiased Stratics administrative staff.

<blockquote><hr>

we have been and now we're being told we're not allowed to? so tell me...

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?!?

[/ QUOTE ]
The comprehension issue seems to be your own from where I sit. You CAN discuss in-game actions of moderators here. The fact is that they're no different in this regard. Flame away at any of them in the same way you can, within the RoC, anyone else on the forums.

You however canNOT violate the RoC and discuss moderator actions taken on the forums. I see your logic that if the mods let the occasional minor RoC infraction slip, then they should just let anarchy reign supreme and we should be allowed to break the RoC at will, but it doesn't work that way. That's like saying the police should let people ****, steal, and murder since they let people go a bit faster than the posted speed limit, or run a light that is a little red. These actions, minor and severe, are worlds apart and you know it. Your logic is unfortunately not appropriate for this discussion.

The way I see it, we Siegers have a really simple choice. Either live with the forums how they are, where we have a bit more freedom than the rest of the forums, or we complain so loudly that Orvago fires all of the mods who play on Siege and we get draconian, by the book, mods who realy don't give a rat's ass about you, your issues, or whatever, and will not take the rants you enjoy so much nearly as well as Kelmo and Co. have. I seriously doubt you could get away with some of the things you've said here without being banned by most other mods in other forums.

So, do you want somewhat lenient mods, or do you want strangers who tolerate nothing less than absolute adherence to the RoC? I know what I prefer, and it isn't having strangers in this place. Take a look at how vociferously people protested Orvago's little visit here recently.

 

[Guest]

A statement of obvious truth. Or maybe to some its not that obvious?

 

[Rykus]

<blockquote><hr>

Also, as much as I know you will refuse to entertain the thought, Kelmo tries very hard to keep TnT/MYTH and Stratics issues separate. It isn't an easy task, for sure, whether its him or another mod having to take action against one of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute. Are you saying... *gasp* ...that Kelmo isn't... *looks around* ...perfect?

Kat, get serious... That's just absurd....

 

[Guest]

I don't know how to answer you.

I try my best to be fair to all, and because I'm aware that I could favour friends, I am especially careful not to let my personal feelings about a poster affect my judgement about what he/she posts.

Without knowing what I have done, how can you judge what I might do in future?

I have no problem following RoC. In all the years I have posted these boards, over 17k posts, I have never received a warning for breaking it. My original registration date got lost along with several others a few years ago. But I can tell you I've been here since Jan 4th 2001. It was my father-in-law's birthday.

I can not moderate this board and not post it. I can not read a post asking for help and not give it. I can not read a question and not answer it. It's not in me to keep silent - heck 17k posts should prove I can't keep quiet!

I will not discuss my individual decisions with you in public. That would be a breach of confidence. The posters I take action against have a right to privacy.

I don't know what you want of me.

 

[Guest]

What they want, the same as always.

An avenue to vent.

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

Since Kat obviously can't understand the English word "Hypothetical" when reading, I'll reply to you and just ignore her gibberish.

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Who or what is keeping their bias in check?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the function of the unbiased (they don't post or play here) administrative Stratics staff. This seems OK to you by your next statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Siege follows special rules that allow its posters to bend the RoC... how is the Administrative staff taking that into consideration when they have no familiarity with how these forums are moderated or how we tolerate bending the RoC?

Since you know all about facts... quote for me that one please?

If somethings well with-in our posting boundaries... but everywhere else considered against the RoC, how are you sitting there telling me that it's being properly looked at?

It's not and you know it.

Captian Obvious says to the audience: Since the administration will ALWAYS consider the mods actions as justified... even if here, they weren't... but, everywhere else they are... what the hell? How is this so hard people!

<blockquote><hr>


I consider Kelmo a friend, and I have been in a guild with him since about day 2 or 3 on Siege. He has not neglected his duties to send me PM's when I've said something inappropriate. Why are you not railing against Majorwoo? It seems the same would apply considering his affiliations with KoC.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're friends with him too! Convenient!

Anyways... why would you get the impression that this doesn't apply to Majorwoo and all of the mods?

I have no clue... this applies to all of them.

This is a discussion about the opinions of many in the community on how these forums are being governed. I've listed plenty of facts to support my opinion on the matter... if you have facts to support a negative argument, then put them forth... otherwise, I have no clue what you're saying other than "Kelmo's my friend so leave him alone... Nao!"

~BR

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

I see your logic that if the mods let the occasional minor RoC infraction slip, then they should just let anarchy reign supreme and we should be allowed to break the RoC at will, but it doesn't work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what I said was that everyone should be treated, equally.

But since you didn't see my logic, maybe you do now that I stabbed you in the eye with it!

HAR!

 

[Kat SP]

<blockquote><hr>

Wait a minute. Are you saying... *gasp* ...that Kelmo isn't... *looks around* ...perfect?

Kat, get serious... That's just absurd....

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... *looks around nervously* ...he's been telling us for YEARS now, that he is, but... quite frankly, I don't believe him. *whispers* Don't tell him I said that!

 

[Guest]

And everyone treated equally is what I aim for.

As I said, I'm doing my best.

 

[Guest]

Maybe it would help if you made clear what it is really want out of this?
A non temperate layout.
Something not dancing around what you want just cut and dry (not claiming that you were before.
Do you want the mods to not post anymore?
New mods?

What is your end game answer to the problems that you percieve?

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

I try my best to be fair to all, and because I'm aware that I could favour friends, I am especially careful not to let my personal feelings about a poster affect my judgement about what he/she posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm not saying that you aren't a great moderator!

<blockquote><hr>

Without knowing what I have done, how can you judge what I might do in future?

I don't know what you want of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What we want from you is the ability to be honest with you... to tell you our position on things when you make your position known to us.

That is all...

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

dr. house wrote:
<blockquote><hr>

Maybe it would help if you made clear what it is really want out of this?
A non temperate layout.
Something not dancing around what you want just cut and dry (not claiming that you were before.
Do you want the mods to not post anymore?
New mods?

What is your end game answer to the problems that you percieve?

[/ QUOTE ]

So be it...

BlacK RaiN wrote:
<blockquote><hr>

What we want from you is the ability to be honest with you... to tell you our position on things when you make your position known to us.

That is all...

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the mods here... I think Kelmo, Mo, Petra, and Woo are great people and serve this community well.

If you weren't such... and more like Savannah... discussions like these wouldn't even be possible.


In no way have I made any claim that you guys haven't been 100% fair or that you guys don't do a bang up job... the only reason I've even involved myself was to keep the relationship between us and you mods... an open one.

 

[Guest]

A very clear and strong statement.

Hats off to you

 

[Guest]

I'm probably being thick, but I'm not sure I understand.

If you mean can you tell me what a noob I was trying to get leather near a moongate with bladespirits, sure you can. I admit it.

*grins sheepishly* - got what I deserved for that bit of idiocy.

If you mean can you tell me the stuff on my vendor will never sell, is too expensive, is a pile of horse dung, yes you can.

If you mean can you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I express and opinion, yes you can.

If you mean will I tell you why I gave a warning, ban or whatever for an RoC violation, no I won't. As previously stated, that would be a breach of confidence.

 

[Rykus]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

I see your logic that if the mods let the occasional minor RoC infraction slip, then they should just let anarchy reign supreme and we should be allowed to break the RoC at will, but it doesn't work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what I said was that everyone should be treated, equally.

But since you didn't see my logic, maybe you do now that I stabbed you in the eye with it!

HAR!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you didn't. Doing a CTRL-F (Find) will quickly show that you have not used that word until this latest post.

Which is better, equality or fairness? Careful now, choose wisely.

<blockquote><hr>

If Siege follows special rules that allow its posters to bend the RoC... how is the Administrative staff taking that into consideration when they have no familiarity with how these forums are moderated or how we tolerate bending the RoC?

Since you know all about facts... quote for me that one please?
If somethings well with-in our posting boundaries... but everywhere else considered against the RoC, how are you sitting there telling me that it's being properly looked at?

It's not and you know it.

Captian Obvious says to the audience: Since the administration will ALWAYS consider the mods actions as justified... even if here, they weren't... what the hell? How is this so hard people!

[/ QUOTE ]
I said I know all the facts? Did I really say that, or are you just doing what you always do and twist someone's words to fit your polymorphic argument? Status quo...

You assume that the administration will always take the side of the mods. Is this one of those "facts" you are talking about? This is nothing but pure conjecture based on your opinion. Nothing else. Certainly not a fact. You also assume that the administrative staff are 100% clueless about how things work here. Is this also a "fact"? Let's see what Mr. Webster thinks.



Main Entry:
fact Listen to the pronunciation of fact
Pronunciation:
\&amp;#712;fakt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date:
15th century

1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime &lt;accessory after the fact&gt; carchaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality &lt;a question of fact hinges on evidence&gt;
4 a: something that has actual existence &lt;space exploration is now a fact&gt; b: an actual occurrence &lt;prove the fact of damage&gt;
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact : in truth

It looks like #3 applies here. Where is your evidence that the Administrative staff is oblivious to the moderation of Siege's forums? Where is the evidence that supports ANY of your "facts" that you are clinging to?


<blockquote><hr>

So you're friends with him too! Convenient!

Anyways... why would you get the impression that this doesn't apply to Majorwoo and all of the mods?

I have no clue... this applies to all of them.

This is a discussion about the opinions of many in the community on how these forums are being governed. I've listed plenty of facts to support my opinion on the matter... if you have facts to support a negative argument, then put them forth... otherwise, I have no clue what you're saying other than "Kelmo's my friend so leave him alone... Nao!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.. Why do I get the impression this doesn't apply to all of them? Well, because you're only mentioning Kelmo. Other than that, I really don't know why I would feel that way.. *rolls eyes*

Why do you act like a 6 year-old when someone calmly and rationally issues a counterpoint in your direction? You really have to resort to this level of immaturity? Seriously?? I thought you were like in your mid-20's. Way to show off your skills at debating like a grown-up.

What "facts" have you posted? Kelmo is a mod. Yep, thats a fact. What else? It seems like lots of opinions to me. Opinions that lack consensus at that.

The "fact" is that you have proven yourself to be very analytical about things and you have a great capacity for many things. You have also proven how hard-headed and myopic you can be, time and time again. I'm curious, what's your agenda here? What do you want or expect to happen from this? Be realistic now. If you want 100% truly unbiased moderation, it comes with a price. The staff we have now are (IMHO) better than any mods before, and they do their jobs very well. Walk a mile....

*edit* - This was written while several other posts went by. It looks like part of it was addressed in the interim.

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

I've said my peace... if you can't derive the meaning of my words from them... it's a shame because it's not that hard. I know this because others were capable of doing so but, since you chose not to... what can I do about that?

*shrugs*

<blockquote><hr>

Hmmm.. Why do I get the impression this doesn't apply to all of them? Well, because you're only mentioning Kelmo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used his name because he started the thread. It's his love child that I'm debating over... so his name was used.

Again, I don't know why you'd think that I'm giving THAT impression... even after I said that I am not. But, I'll be getting off this merry-go-round right now tksuberrymuch!

<blockquote><hr>

Why do you act like a 6 year-old when someone calmly and rationally issues a counterpoint in your direction? You really have to resort to this level of immaturity? Seriously?? I thought you were like in your mid-20's. Way to show off your skills at debating like a grown-up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You tell me I'm the one acting like a child when you're the only one of us two taking this discussion out of what we're actually discussing.

Like I said... I've said my peace and everything I had meant to convey to the mods and this community can be found in those posts.

Chao

 

[Rykus]

I understand what you're saying just fine. Funny how others are responding but I'm the only one you feel doesn't understand. I do, very well, I just happen to think, just like others here, you're wrong.

You know very well what I meant by the immaturity comment, but way to deflect, like usual...

Oh, by the way, it's ciao..

You never give up when you have a valid argument. Funny how you are giving up so easily now...

<blockquote><hr>

In no way have I made any claim that you guys haven't been 100% fair or that you guys don't do a bang up job... the only reason I've even involved myself was to keep the relationship between us and you mods... an open one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm.. What is it then when you accuse someone of bias? That doesn't sound like you really feel they have been 100% fair to me. Or can you really say someone is both 100% fair and biased (unfair to one party based on personal affiliation with another party) at the same time? See below...

<blockquote><hr>

As a mod, if you want to post and be a part of the community by giving your opinion on matters, injecting your bias (because yes, you do have bias towards people you know... it's even admitted in the post when the ramifications of having a non-biased unaffiliated mod involved was described)

[/ QUOTE ]
Regarding:

<blockquote><hr>

What we want from you is the ability to be honest with you... to tell you our position on things when you make your position known to us.

That is all...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why can't this be done privately? If an employee of mine does something I feel is inappropriate, I take them aside and privately discuss it. Why can't this approach be used effectively with the mods here?

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

Oh, by the way, it's ciao..


[/ QUOTE ]

It's Chao

For simply no other reason other than....


You love my style!

 

[UberJake]

You also have to consider that this site isn't run by E.A and is independant from them to a certain degree, the people who become moderators do so because the admins think they will best work towards filling their personal objectives for the site. So complaining to an admin about one of their hand picked moderators is pretty pointless and will nearly always end in the same way, with the admins backing the moderators actions no matter how biased towards certain people they may be.
A moderator should never be allowed to mod a forum for the server they play because inevitably personal feelings will always come into play. Anyone remember Subishi when she was a mod here back in the day? She had personal problems with a certain awesome guild and even went to the length of removing events they were planning from the Stratics calendar because of things that happened ingame. This will never change as long as E.A's "official" website is maintained by a 3rd party so sadly you either have to get used to it or stop posting here.

 

[Guest]

OK. I hope every one said what they felt needed said. Time to shut it down as we have moved beyond the typical Kelmo bashing/support. I thank you all and am respectful of your opinions. Let's not start another thread like this up. mmmkay?