-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
- Status
ya epic fail in the name drop category when most people here wouldnt have a clue who he is. But suffice to know he is a small man with a huge ego, That has created some really fun games for Microsoft.
Keep a foul mouth filter available or these forums will eventually be only foul mouthed posters, the rest of us will weary of the bad language and stop taking part.
These people need to let all this flow out the other end of their digestive tracts.
These people need to let all this flow out the other end of their digestive tracts.
If we haven't tired of the arbitrary moderating, the inability to express ones opinions about the game we pay for, nor discuss actions of the stratics staff....It makes me sad to say this, but I doubt we will grow weary of a lil cussing...
If this thread is any indication those that be should take note of how some, not all, of the people who use this forum feel. This isn't a case of meet the new boss is it?
I feel dramatized...
I feel dramopolized...
Rules:
1. Don't be a penis.
2. Talk about UO.
I just made the best RoC yet.
1. Don't be a penis.
2. Talk about UO.
I just made the best RoC yet.
I find these rules terribly offensive....
How many complaints would be filed if I said:
rule 1; dont be a vagina
2; See you next tuesday
Fixed to be gender equal..it's 2016 don't forget
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MICROAGGRESSION!!! *runs to safe space*...la
I don't come on forums to be professional. I come on gaming forums to have a good time. The less rules the better. As far as Spock's post that it's shocking Kelmo actually said this... I couldn't agree more. He may have been on staff for 10 years, and I may appreciate everyone including him keeping the game going that long while I was off and on, I don't see what the actual purpose is of his suggestion other than adding another rule and wanting to be controlling.
It's taking the board too seriously that ruins the fun.
Moving things into other topics when they were very much questionable anyways was one of the things he was known for being quick on the trigger about.
It's taking the board too seriously that ruins the fun.
Moving things into other topics when they were very much questionable anyways was one of the things he was known for being quick on the trigger about.
If this it going to be a legitimate discussion, then this line from the RoC really needs to go:
"publicly discussing moderator action, such as bans, warnings, locks, and moved threads. Any inquiries or comments on moderator actions, are to be sent in private messages."
Far too often, mainly under the pre-Bazaaro administration, this rule was used to quash community dissent and sweep blatant abuses of moderator "power" under the rug in furtherance of their rampant ego trips. It completely destroyed even the thinnest pretense of transparency, especially when the mods run everything (even more so in the current set-up that is forming).
If you have a problem with a mod, who do you go to to complain? The Stratics Board ARE the mods, right? So the cliquish system is already set up for corruption and the censorship of dissenters. Sending in a grievance pm will continue to remain pissing into the wind. Moderators must be accountable at every step, peer-reviewed even, to prevent the flagrant abuses of the past.
In addition to that, moderators need to act with both personal and institutional consistency. Applying rules equally, rather then the abusive selectivity of the past (I.e. it was fairly obvious which posters were likely mod alts, as they got away with things which got other people's posts removed or threads quickly locked). Institutional consistency would be maintained by peer-review. In the past, it was confounding to watch a thread progress, including mod participation, only to have a different mod randomly sweep in (sometimes days later) and gut the thread of posts they personally didn't like. Inconsistent things like that simply shouldn't occur if every mod is on the same page, and they are held accountable for going rogue.
If the removal of the above "rule" and the call for mod consistency means a mod might get publicly called out for a bad action by the community, so be it. The community, which financed the recent acquisition, deserves more of a say in how it is "policed."
Honestly, I'd suggest the Stratics Board NOT also be moderators so as to at least give pretense to their required impartiality in the equitable running of community affairs.
"publicly discussing moderator action, such as bans, warnings, locks, and moved threads. Any inquiries or comments on moderator actions, are to be sent in private messages."
Far too often, mainly under the pre-Bazaaro administration, this rule was used to quash community dissent and sweep blatant abuses of moderator "power" under the rug in furtherance of their rampant ego trips. It completely destroyed even the thinnest pretense of transparency, especially when the mods run everything (even more so in the current set-up that is forming).
If you have a problem with a mod, who do you go to to complain? The Stratics Board ARE the mods, right? So the cliquish system is already set up for corruption and the censorship of dissenters. Sending in a grievance pm will continue to remain pissing into the wind. Moderators must be accountable at every step, peer-reviewed even, to prevent the flagrant abuses of the past.
In addition to that, moderators need to act with both personal and institutional consistency. Applying rules equally, rather then the abusive selectivity of the past (I.e. it was fairly obvious which posters were likely mod alts, as they got away with things which got other people's posts removed or threads quickly locked). Institutional consistency would be maintained by peer-review. In the past, it was confounding to watch a thread progress, including mod participation, only to have a different mod randomly sweep in (sometimes days later) and gut the thread of posts they personally didn't like. Inconsistent things like that simply shouldn't occur if every mod is on the same page, and they are held accountable for going rogue.
If the removal of the above "rule" and the call for mod consistency means a mod might get publicly called out for a bad action by the community, so be it. The community, which financed the recent acquisition, deserves more of a say in how it is "policed."
Honestly, I'd suggest the Stratics Board NOT also be moderators so as to at least give pretense to their required impartiality in the equitable running of community affairs.
the new monoply game dra(monoply)lized
Your penchant for smoke and mirrors doesn't quite obfuscate the corruption, censorship or outright lies perpetrated on this community under your tenure, Taylor.
Dot normally I dont agree with virtually anything you say.......but in this case I agree completely....which scares the hell out of me as I am sure it does you as well.
Perhaps public discussion of moderators can be kept off the forum if there was actually peer review by a committee of forum members.
Now I dont buy this crap about alumni getting special treatment. I am alumni and I have had my share of bans and warnings...as have other former staff. But it would give a layer of transparency to have a small group of people to review disputed moderator account actions. People who arent part of the organization.
Well done Dot....this is the best idea I have heard in a while!
I've already been a victim of what you describe. Hell my PM to other board members about another fell on deaf ears, not even a response.
Captn Norrington
Stratics Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
Not entirely true, right now approximately half the board have access to moderator tools, but for some that is not their main job and they would only use those tools if forced to, like if something were posted that needs to be gone as soon as possible (racism, porn etc.). The other half of the board have no moderating power whatsoever and work on other areas of the site instead.
I am actually the only board member who's main job is moderating and forum related stuff. All the rest have other things to work on as well.
If for some reason a person thought I was trying to "censor" something and they sent a message to the board, if it was truly censorship or something against the rules I 100% guarantee that if it is a legitimate claim the board would tell me to stop doing whatever is causing the problems and I would have to.
Just for future reference though, if you have a problem with a moderating decision, I am the first person you would talk to about it since I am the Forum Administrator. If you were not happy with my decision or if the complaint is about me, then the next step would be to approach the entire board about it. If the board does not agree with your complaint, that is where the process would end. If the board does agree with your complaint, steps will be taken to correct the problem.
Captn Norrington
Stratics Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
Sending a PM to one or two board members to complain about another board member will not work, because those one or two are not authorized to make any decision about it themselves. Which is probably why you got no response.
If you want to complain about a board member, send a group message to all board members about it, including the one you are filing the complaint against. That way everyone will be able to see it and a decision can be discussed as a group without anyone feeling left out or like something was hidden from them.
Why didn't the two board members have the decency or professionalism to tell me or anyone this process?
How was anyone to know these arbitrary rules about sending a PM to the entire board?
Who's on the board again? Has the person who was bought off with a board seat to stop bidding been officially announced yet? Can I get a clear list?
How was anyone to know these arbitrary rules about sending a PM to the entire board?
Who's on the board again? Has the person who was bought off with a board seat to stop bidding been officially announced yet? Can I get a clear list?
Thanks, Taylor! We really appreciate your confidence, and those of the other 100+ community members who supported the campaign.I feel good about the board. Good luck, guys, I think you'll be the best yet.
For those with questions about our policies or intentions, a reminder that you can always consult THIS THREAD, where we gathered the answers to everyone's questions in one place in the heat of an extremely accelerated auction and campaign to save Stratics and keep it in the community.
This sounds professional and not unduly burdensome on the community. I'd suggest that this be published somewhere appropriate whenever Stratics is updated so everyone will know the escalation procedures, should they be needed. I'd also suggest someone be responsible for acknowledging any grievances put forth, no matter how frivolous (within reason), to avoid the prior black hole of rug sweepery.
I assume this is the part you are directing me to with your ALL CAPS link:
Q: If a player has a problem with a staff member or board member, who will those problems be taken to?
A process for problem reporting and/or complaints will be documented and made publicly available. Submitted complaints will be reviewed and acted on by the active/sitting Board.
It should be noted that in a single ownership model, the process of petition or appeal ultimately results in a single person's decision as “final.” As noted in the previous Q&A, employing a Board-run model creates a series of checks and balances that prevents any one person (financially-motivated or otherwise) from being able to exert undue influence on the operations of the site or the engagement of the community it serves.
It should be noted that in a single ownership model, the process of petition or appeal ultimately results in a single person's decision as “final.” As noted in the previous Q&A, employing a Board-run model creates a series of checks and balances that prevents any one person (financially-motivated or otherwise) from being able to exert undue influence on the operations of the site or the engagement of the community it serves.
So can we assume that Norrington just documented the process and made it PUBLICLY AVAILABLE??? The above is far from, "If you want to complain about a board member, send a group message to all board members about it, including the one you are filing the complaint against. That way everyone will be able to see it and a decision can be discussed as a group without anyone feeling left out or like something was hidden from them." ~ Norrington
If this is the new process I can tell you that no one is going to complain they are just going to leave. It reeks of impropriety, making complaints as arduous as possible....What are the logistics to this process? Is there a vote or the board? is it majority or must everyone vote? what if people are out of town. If its majority what is to stop the accused and his/her buddies voting down every complaint? What if someone sends in a complaint and forgets a few members, can they expect to be ignored like I was? Is there a time frame the user can expect communication from the board? If you have to include the accused, what is to stop even more retribution? What is the turnaround of this whole process in an ideal world?
While we are at it, Are Administrators/ moderators held to the same ROC that us peon users are? Is discussing someones reported post of another person in public allowed?
kelmo
Old and in the way
Professional
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Dread Lord
Would that not make the "small group" a "part of the organization"?
No cause the small group could change up every 6 months or year....like a peer review. The would have no administration or moderation ability. No ability to issue punishment. They would just judge the action of the moderator as reasonable or not reasonable. Then the board can make a decision with that in mind.
I like "rug sweepery" lol. Norrington and Kyronix are always fair and impressively well spoke. Most impressive.
It's not pancake pancake pancake pancake pancake when most of us have seen nothing but b ullcake b ullcake B ULLcake B ullcake b ullcake.
This whole thing reeks of the same ******** we've seen in the past. If you have an issue complain to mod, if thats not good enough complain to mods buddies. Surely that will get you a fair response. It's ********.
I am going to respectfully but firmly direct you to this post -- The State of Stratics -- with particular reference to the following:
- Finalizing the LLC formation and formalizing the Stratics leadership structure.
- Reviewing and updating internal administrative documents such as our Volunteer Staff application(s), Volunteer/Contributor Agreements, Policy & Procedure docs, our Charter and By-Law documents, Mission Statement, etc.
These are our current urgent and necessary tasks, among the others listed in that post. Publicly berating the team or criticizing the details of specific policies and procedures that have not yet been formalized is both premature and non-constructive; it will not generate answers any sooner or make the work go any faster.
In the meantime, we also continue with our normal day-to-day operational tasks on the site. If you do have a valid, urgent need of assistance that cannot be handled by our staff moderators, please follow Norrington's request and PM the leadership team as listed in the Q&A I linked to. Otherwise, we will continue with our transition tasks so that EVERYONE will have the answers to their questions as quickly as possible.
- Status