Board Problems, Suggestions and Updates

[NaOH]

Hardly, I assumed that was already being done.  And all those foolish infractions are still here.

[Miacis]

Hardly, I assumed that was already being done.  And all those foolish infractions are still here.

Sorry if we didn't meet your impatience standards, sire.

[NaOH]

true. i think we do need to make the rules more specific... another project to do
but necroposting is defined in the spamming part of the rules. i'm more lenient with the time between (i'd allow up to 3 weeks instead of the 1 in the rules - that's just me) but something like 4 months without contributing anything to the topic is just annoying. i recently just bumped 3 people on the warnings because of necroposting in one of my old topics because one person just said "thank you" and then the other two mini-modded instead of reporting the original poster. i agree that the rules can (and should) be more clear, but at least for necroposting, common sense should play some kind of role in it, shouldnt it?

i thought that avatars were automatically resized if they were too big? but there's a signature rule in there and it is specific with dimensions.

considering this was brought up APRIL 20TH I think my patience is just fine.

Also, lets deal with all staff that have made poorly placed sanctions the same, shall we?

Don't know if you caught that, but Vile was demoted for retarded warnings, but Oizen was not?

-.-

ya'll crazy for this one.

[PAVGN]

Mods are normally sanctionned like any kind of user for breaking any major forum rules... Sanctionning mods is simply not an habit

Wait a minute. How can you say this and then say

And when the system was brought to the boards ... well, of course you can't warn/moderate/mute an admin. Admins can remove these sanctions at will.

?

Can admins be sanctioned or not? Obviously "a firm scolding" isn't enough to stop abuse of power.

of course you can't warn/moderate/mute an admin. Admins can remove these sanctions at will.

Well then how about making It so that admins/mods can be warned/moderated/muted and once an admin/mod receives an infraction they can't remove infractions? At least from themselves?

I saw that, and made a pretty pissed off topic in the admin section about it. The main answer I got from the admins who took a shot at the users didn't sound very repentant though, although Hakumen at least apologized for his bad mood on that day. (I guess I can transmit these apologies to the users ? If not, well, my bad, that was an unintentionnal "leak".)

Yes, you did handle that situation better than the others and actually did something about the suggestion presented. I commend you for that.

well, that's a pretty stupid reason to sanction people indeed.

I personnally exposed my opinion on the matter and stated that the warning for a "spammy" word was a bit harsh, since a simple edit would have sufficed.
But SW blew it out of proportion and started using report abuses too, so well ...

Well It's nice to see that we agree about something.

If you really need to add something to your post and want EVERYONE to be notified about it, there's the simple trick or copying the first info, deleting thepost, and posting a new post with both the first and second info. Takes a few seconds and is quite better for the lisibility.

Fair enough. I guess that works too.

You can't upload viruses in BV.

Well technically all you need to say is that the Brawlvault is only for hacks. Since there's been a few times where custom stages (as in Stage Builder stages) have been uploaded, there are some people that didn't quite get that immediately. So stating that It's only for hacks will get that message across to those people as well as covering the Captain Obvious "no viruses" rules at the same time. Not that there ever have been viruses uploaded to the vault. Well, as far as I know anyway.

You can't put submissions in the Vault that let you earn money from it.

Then something should be done about this guy. He put a donation link in the description for his hacks, possibly because he needs money as motivation to hack. This was already discussed apparently, but you did just say you aren't allowed to earn money from hacks.

I've been warned before, so has Oizen and stickman.

admins could be warned last year. not this year.

So flaming someone in the form of a stage is okay?

I am a firm believer that hackers can make whatever they want. However, for the sake of a less hostile atmosphere on the forums, people should refrain from uploading hacks that insult other hackers into the vault. Also, considering the kind of person Oizen is (I don't really need to illustrate what I mean by that do I?), the fact that the hack was deleted and any information of what It was was removed, It really seemed like the hack was removed because Oizen couldn't handle being insulted. The fact that he didn't want people talking about Kitty Leaks adds to this.

Now I wonder what was in the DL link.

Then I'll PM you the download link so you can see for yourself.

[stickman]

Since that was mostly directed at Miacis, I'll cover what I can.

The warning system is a forum plugin; not something that picano coded in his free time. We just can't do what it wasn't intended to do, which is moderate an admin.

We aren't allowed to force people into making us money. (Example is putting a download that can only be reached by submitting a survey) They can, however, donate out of free will.

And I see you keep quoting me from that Private Message between us. I said that out of ignorance because I didn't have a better explanation for you. At that point in time, I was not an admin the year before, so I did not know how things were handled. I thought that was a good enough reasoning at the time, but now I see that "private" doesn't mean anything, and I have to think about what my messages will look like 3 months in advance when used against the moderation team. Joy. Sorry, it looks like I gave you permission to post that. My mistake.

And stop trying to make it look like Oizen is a baby for taking down the hack and stopping discussion of Kitty Leaks. In both cases, the content was offensive, which is against the rules, so he had every right to stop it.

[PAVGN]

And I see you keep quoting me from that Private Message between us.

I probably shouldn't be making this post, so feel free to delete It If you agree. But you gave me permission to post those PMs.

knock yourself out. go for it. i don't know what you are going to prove with it though...

So you really can't complain about me bringing them up again. Unless you don't remember you giving me permission, in which case It's understandable.

In both cases, the content was offensive, which is against the rules, so he had every right to stop it.

The offensive content thing is easily abusable. "I don't like this so I'm going to claim It offended me to get It removed". Not that I'm saying this is the case here.

[stickman]

I'm sorry about that. Please excuse me. I just looked in my PM's and I did find that I said yes. My mistake.

But the offensive content stuff is obvious. It is directly insulting or in bad taste, and anyone can see that. If it was given a vote, the outcome would be the same.

[Oizen]

For the record, I didn't take action there until a decent amount of users openly said they were offended.

By now I've removed all (? if I missed you somehow, please PM) warnings from people who discussed it, since I didn't intend for them to last very long. But now there are set guidelines for that sort of thing, which I will be following.

[NaOH]

For the record, I didn't take action there until a decent amount of users openly said they were offended.

I'm not sure how me denying that the blog was my doing was offensive.

[Oizen]

I'm not sure how me denying that the blog was my doing was offensive.

Discussion of that leads to more discussion.

Regardless, we know who was behind it now, sorry for the accusations.

[Miacis]

Can admins be sanctioned or not? Obviously "a firm scolding" isn't enough to stop abuse of power.

It can't, but if somebody crosses the limit, he'll get eventually demoted => banned, but it's in extreme cases. Or we do something like for Hakumen and restrict his accesses. But these are very occasionnal cases and take too much to do anyway.
If you find something abusive, you're free to talk about it with the concerned admin or here. But again, it's kinda better to do it when you see said "power abuse". Not 3 weeks later.

Well technically all you need to say is that the Brawlvault is only for hacks. Since there's been a few times where custom stages (as in Stage Builder stages) have been uploaded, there are some people that didn't quite get that immediately. So stating that It's only for hacks will get that message across to those people as well as covering the Captain Obvious "no viruses" rules at the same time. Not that there ever have been viruses uploaded to the vault. Well, as far as I know anyway.

We'll probably add that and add another line which mentions what rules from the boards still apply to BV reports and submissions. Like "These board rules also apply to BV reports and BV submissions : Flaming, Disruptive Behaviour, Trolling, etc..."

Also, considering the kind of person Oizen is (I don't really need to illustrate what I mean by that do I?), the fact that the hack was deleted and any information of what It was was removed, It really seemed like the hack was removed because Oizen couldn't handle being insulted. The fact that he didn't want people talking about Kitty Leaks adds to this.

Not really. I was the one who deleted it before even asking Oizen about it. And the reactions of people pointing out that hack were rather revealing. Even though they had no link to Oizen, they didn't support that insult at all.
The info was removed simply because the info was saying "Oizen is a bad mod, DL if you agree", so ... It falls under the rules.

I also wanted to point out, about KL, that Oizen wasn't really all that badly targeted and didn't seem bothered all that much (to me ?) about his treatment. He was probably more when some people felt offended later on.

***

Also, we're trying to look for more ways, beside the new rules, to have more transparent moderation.

[Oizen]

I deleted a hack now?
I haven't even touched my BV powers in weeks, what are you people talking about?

and Miacis you're right, I personally, don't care about Kitty Leaks, infact I would have completely ignored it if other users weren't bothered by it.

[Albafika]

o_o I don't see what's really the use of defending a hack that was obviously made for insulting someone, just checking 2 of the 3 pictures it had it's proof enough it wasn't a serious hack and needed to be deleted.

[Vyse]

Introducing the Moderation Corner: http://forums.kc-mm.com/index.php?board=39.0

As the description states, this is a board for asking a question about or challenging a moderation you've received. The permissions are set such that you may view and reply to only your own topics, but the moderation team can view and reply to everything like usual.

I recommend reading the board's rules before posting there.

This board was my idea; I felt like it offered more transparency and access to the mods than posting in this thread or replying to your moderation PM.

[Segtendo]

Introducing the Moderation Corner: http://forums.kc-mm.com/index.php?board=39.0

As the description states, this is a board for asking a question about or challenging a moderation you've received. The permissions are set such that you may view and reply to only your own topics, but the moderation team can view and reply to everything like usual.

I recommend reading the rules before posting there.

This board was my idea; I felt like it offered more transparency and access to the mods than posting in this thread or replying to your moderation PM.

That's actually a good idea Vyse.
This thread gets cluttered pretty fast.