|
|
 |
« Reply #450 on: July 27, 2011, 02:08:05 AM » |
|
Something is really weird, apparently i can't report anyone's posts. It's giving me an error everytime.. Database Error
Please try again. If you come back to this error screen, report the error to an administrator. Any idea what's causing this and if it's just me or more people? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #451 on: July 27, 2011, 03:29:14 AM » |
|
Where did you try to report it ?
We know the Stages and Stages Requests boards have their reporting messed up on most topics. But if the problem occurred somewhere else, we'd like to know about it.
If reports do not work somewhere, simply send a PM reporting the problematic posts to all active admins/mods.
That would be Vyse, Jack H, picano, myself, Oizen, Vish, DragonRage, Segab, ds22 and LookItsLink, I do believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Round and round the signature goes ~ ~ where it stops, nobody knows. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #452 on: July 27, 2011, 03:42:17 AM » |
|
Where did you try to report it ?
We know the Stages and Stages Requests boards have their reporting messed up on most topics. But if the problem occurred somewhere else, we'd like to know about it.
If reports do not work somewhere, simply send a PM reporting the problematic posts to all active admins/mods.
That would be Vyse, Jack H, picano, myself, Oizen, Vish, DragonRage, Segab, ds22 and LookItsLink, I do believe.
I can't seem to find the topic anymore.. It wasn't in the stage section though. But this is good to know, i'll be sure to watch and if needed PM the reports. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #453 on: July 27, 2011, 08:44:26 AM » |
|
Where did you try to report it ?
We know the Stages and Stages Requests boards have their reporting messed up on most topics. But if the problem occurred somewhere else, we'd like to know about it.
If reports do not work somewhere, simply send a PM reporting the problematic posts to all active admins/mods.
That would be Vyse, Jack H, picano, myself, Oizen, Vish, DragonRage, Segab, ds22 and LookItsLink, I do believe.
Are there inactive admins/mods? O.o |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ㅤlㅤ
ㅤlㅤ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #454 on: July 27, 2011, 10:33:56 AM » |
|
Are there inactive admins/mods? O.o
We try not to have them at least. Though, I for one rarely respond to PMs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #455 on: July 28, 2011, 10:27:57 AM » |
|
Question, if a double post is caused by someone deleting their posts, is it still possibly moderable?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ㅤlㅤ
ㅤlㅤ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #456 on: July 28, 2011, 11:07:06 AM » |
|
Question, if a double post is caused by someone deleting their posts, is it still possibly moderable?
Moderable, as in giving a warning for double posting, then no. It's not their fault they double posted. And if it is moderable in the rules, then that's just wrong >_>. You can just do that to give someone a warning if you're mad at them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #457 on: July 28, 2011, 11:11:29 AM » |
|
Moderable, as in giving a warning for double posting, then no. It's not their fault they double posted. And if it is moderable in the rules, then that's just wrong >_>. You can just do that to give someone a warning if you're mad at them.
Sorry, but that question was for the staff  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ㅤlㅤ
ㅤlㅤ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #458 on: July 28, 2011, 11:15:11 AM » |
|
Question, if a double post is caused by someone deleting their posts, is it still possibly moderable?
Normally, no. However, mods and admins can't really tell "on the spot" if a double-post was caused by a deletion. Dozens of posts are deleted daily, so even the Recycle Bin doesn't help alot. If, by a rather infortunate stroke of bad luck, a mod finds your "double-post" a reason to sanction you, then just report it in the moderation corner, or directly by PM with the one who warned you. That way we can check into the Bin if indeed something was deleted on that day and remove the sanction with our apologies. Also, if you find one of your posts to have been "double-postified" by a post deletion, you should merge the two posts. Tha way, you're sure it won't be mistakenly sanctionned. Moderable, as in giving a warning for double posting, then no. It's not their fault they double posted. And if it is moderable in the rules, then that's just wrong >_>;. You can just do that to give someone a warning if you're mad at them.
... Since you didn't even consider the basic concept that it's sometimes not really easy for us to tell if a double post was intentional or not, could you at least let us (the staff) reply before coming up with your own interpretation of how we work (or "should work") ? Thanks. >_> |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 11:18:53 AM by Miacis DaShade »
|
Logged
|
Round and round the signature goes ~ ~ where it stops, nobody knows. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #459 on: July 28, 2011, 01:51:14 PM » |
|
Thanks Miacis.
I found some double posts in my thread even though I always edit the previous post instead (or make a new and delete the older), so it was probably someone who deleted his/her old posts. =/
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 01:52:09 PM by br3compactor »
|
Logged
|
ㅤlㅤ
ㅤlㅤ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #460 on: July 28, 2011, 05:33:35 PM » |
|
Hello, good afternoon people of the staff, mods, admins and whoever might check this post.
First of all I apologize that it took me some time to do this post, but real life keeps me busy with work and some other things... and to be honest when I have free time I really don't feel like "screencapping evidence".
But anyways, first things first:
I launched a big discussion in the Admin section to update the ambiguous parts of the rules. And to discuss about some innapropriate moderation tactics. Happy now, guys ? 
I appreciate that what I've asked for has been noted, considered and something is actually being made about it.
I hope some changes are truly being made, like making the rules more clear. So really, thanks.
Yeah, I'm kinda still waiting for that flood of blatant favoritism and power abuses ...
I mean, at the time of the complaints, it seemed like it was so overwhelming on the board that it would have taken 7 seconds to find everything. >.>
And to respond to that:
I've actually been gathering some "proof" ever since Miacis mentioned I needed to show something recent.
Want to know why I haven't posted it?
Because some if not most of that is about you (Oizen)... and we know I can't say anything about you there because they'll instantly consider it part of the "anti-oizen cruzade".
The other reason is that the things I was going to post about where already said by others... (like all the kitty leaks issue) so, you want me to just repeat it? Ok, I can do that.
And last but not least... curiously enough, after I posted there and Miacis told me to gather proof, I noticed an increase in the work of moderators... Even the family thread that usually has rules being legitimately broken was being watched and moderated...
Actually it was quite nice to see that happen.
So now, I'm just waiting so I can gather new recent proof... but whatever, that's something I'm planning to discuss with Miacis, not you.
And with that out of the way, let's start.
I'll divide this post in "sections" each within a spoiler tag so that it's easier to read through.
Also, I "screencaptured" the posts instead of simply quoting them, to make the text somewhat easier to follow, understand a little more the context and because quoting would get rid of quotes within the quotes.
So, if the image re-sizer of the forum makes the image smaller to a point where it's hard to read, click said image so your browser opens the image in a new tab.
PLEASE, read all of it before starting to quote and respond.
 Kitty Leaks Thread.
This is a topic that has been discussed quite a lot, and there's something that bugs me about how the staff handed the situation.
The staff claimed that the reason for removing the url to the blog, warning the user who made the thread and locking it, was "linking to drawings with obscene material".
I'm not gonna discuss the policies of the forum about nudity in stick figures, but if you check the thread you'll notice some curious things:
1. When the thread was posted, there was only 1 comic.
The user who made the thread didn't have control over the contents in it, when he posted the link, there still wasn't "obscene material" present, and still, got warned under the rule about obscenity.
That doesn't seem fair at all.
2. Speaking of nudity or obscene material, that was present in the blog since the 3rd comic:
By the time some staff members noticed the thread (Oizen, Miacis), and actually posted in it showing signs of approval, the first 4 comics were already up in the blog.
But none of them complained about that thread breaking the rules, or the nudity, or the obscene material...
A mod and an admin were both approving of it, even with the obscene material.
3. After this comic targeting directly 3 staff members was posted:
Was when one of the "affected" decided to post, "blaming" the creator of the thread as if he was the author of the comics.
Why did he suddenly decide to post like he wanted to pin the "blame" on someone?
Then this really mature comic [/sarcasm] was posted:
And just after that, the thread was locked.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
The claim was that the warn and lock were because of "obscene material".
Then why didn't the other staff members act before? The obscene material had been there since the 3rd comic, quite early. Clearly more than 1 staff member saw it.
But they waited until those comics targeting specifically other staff members with a negative connotation appeared.
So, was it really locked just because of the "obscene material"? Or more because of the comics "attacking" the staff members?
It all started when some users in the family thread started talking about the comics there.
Since one of them targeted a family member the talk was brought there, nothing really special.
Then Noah posted in the thread and some users were claiming he was the author of the comics, it wasn't really a heated discussion or anything, but apparently Oizen didn't like people talking about the theme in general, so...
His claim is that talking about it causes discomfort and stress among the users?
The users were the ones that brought the topic up, they were talking about it because they wanted to...
Wouldn't it give them discomfort the fact that a mod restricts them to not talking about it rather than relief?
It seems more like since Oizen didn't want users talking about it, he simply didn't allow them... going so far as to threatening anyone who talked about it with a warning.
The funny thing is that the one that was moderated (because he already was warned), was Noah.
Noah was "ninja'd", he really didn't have a chance, to say it in a way.
Then Oizen started handing out warnings to anyone who made even the slight reference to the comics.
Since 1 of the users wasn't warned after Oizen's announcement, Noah decided to point it out.
The result was Oizen using it as an excuse to mute him...
Isn't it supposed that in order for a moderated person to post, his posts must be first approved by a staff member?
Then why was Noah's post immediately approved? Maybe to have an excuse to getting him muted?
One of the users suggests Oizen to lock the thread instead of going in a warning spree... surprisingly he refuses... why? We know that Oizen likes to lock threads.
Hell, he even used to do it just for fun.
And in this case it would be preferable to make a temporal lock instead of warning every single user that mentions something he doesn't like.
More users posted later, talking about the same, they weren't warned... Why?
The topic was brought up again, and thankfully another mod simply made his way with words to keep things "in order".
No need to go in a warning spree.
And then, after telling others to not bring up the Kitty Leaks topic, Oizen himself brought it up...
Nice move...
^ That red text you see is a link to the post where he told people that anybody that mentioned Kitty Leaks would be warned...
The whole thing itself was quite stupid, There was no need at all to go in a warning spree... Specially considering that the reason for warning was that he didn't want anybody talking about the topic.
I wonder... are mods and admins allowed to prohibit certain topics, just because they don't like them? Or would that be... power abuse?
I would understand getting warned if I talked about it and linked to the site, but that wasn't the case, it was just people talking about the comics in general.
So, when the original blog received that content warning, it apparently became fair game... so a new kitty leaks thread was born.
And as fast as it was made, Oizen strikes again...
I would love to have a screen capture of that post he made where he gave an "apology" that was more like an insult, but I cant because:
Apparently, now the staff can and will delete any post they consider inappropriate.
In a way it's good for what is mentioned in what Miacis quoted. It's better than setting an ambush and hand warnings to everyone.
On the other hand, it's quite dubious that the staff will properly delete posts.
I don't know about other users, but I don't like the idea of my post getting deleted because a staff member considered it inappropriate.
What if the staff member simply doesn't like my opinion about something and deletes my post claiming it was for the sake of keeping things in order?
I've already noticed some posts disappearing, and I gotta say some of them were quite harmless... it's hard to prove my point because with the deletion, I can't show them.
Anyways, moving on with Kitty Leaks...
The thread started going into a rather off-topic discussion, and what did Oizen decide to do?
That's right, locking it... that was quite unexpected... wasn't it? 
Fortunately Vyse was around:
And I completely agree with Vyse, in both subjects.
It shows Oizen's motivation to lock the thread (and the previous warning spree in the family thread) is more for personal reasons rather than being objective as a mod.
And now, talking about the locking of a thread...
Why does the staff lock threads?
Let's see some examples:
^ Remember that thread where the staff was confronted by some users, that derived into a conflict where Oizen was accused of not being a good mod, and some other issues with the staff?
Apparently nobody does because according to some staff members, if it happened a couple months ago, it's way in the past and doesn't even matter anymore...
Well, in that thread things got out of control, so stickman locked the thread to avoid further conflict and flaming.
That's an excellent case of good locking.
^ This was a thread made with the sole purpose of "gaining a 3rd star", with a 100th post.
It was just spam, and therefore was locked... I would say it's fair enough.
^ The first Family Thread reached 10,000 pages, so it was locked and a new one was created.
Someone else locked it, I think it was Miacis iirc.
But since Oizen needs to always have the last word... he posted in it again, despite it already was locked.
After that, he and Vish had fun making a video spam competence in that same locked thread that lasted for some pages until they got bored of it.
Why bringing that up? Well...
The whole StarWaffle thing is something debatable that I won't bring up... but this relates to it.
He posted there, in the goodbye thread of StarWaffle, in a provoking manner, and then proceeded to lock...
Because, you know, "Oizen always has the last word".
There wasn't a legit true reason to lock it, there wasn't a flamewar going on or anything... just people saying goodbye.
Some time back there was a little uproar in the off-topic section because the staff was locking goodbye threads the users made in it.
There was flaming and more, and in the end the staff decided to change the intro sub-forum into an intro and goodbye place.
Users weren't giving it a real good use to it since they would make threads about leaving, and come back days or even hours later.
So, it was stated by the staff that from now on, goodbye threads should be serious and be valid for a considerable amount of time, like 1 month as a minimum.
That's good, and seems to be carried on like in this example of a user leaving and coming back a few days later (even if the user didn't really leave):
Then, why wasn't this user warned as well?
^ Leaving post.
v Post announcing his return made 3 days later.
You might think that maybe he wasn't warned because the "rule" about not making useless goodbye threads didn't exist yet.
Well...
The rule was even made the same day the thread of his goodbye was posted... then, what is the criteria behind warning one user, and not both?
Now, let's see a little about locking topics again...
There's a "goodbye" thread in the intro section, the thing with it is that it is essentially a big wall of text where the user rants about this forum and community, instead of just saying goodbye.
There is an exchange of words between the creator of the thread and some other users.
The thread was essentially not serving the purpose of saying goodbye and was walking into the direction of complete off-topic and slight flaming.
So, a staff member decided to lock it:
This was completely justified, the thread was more about ranting than a goodbye.
Then, what is the story with this one?
Was it closed because he said he didn't like how the staff works?
Because frankly that seems like the only reason why they felt like locking it.
So, according to the rules, "Using any non-censored word (i.e. “gay”) to imply an insult (i.e. “stupid”) is considered offensive".
Fair enough, that's a rule you guys decided to adopt.
I don't share the opinion that using "gay" as an expression implying "stupid" is offensive... after all, I have an homosexual friend that uses "gay" as "stupid", and he clearly doesn't have a problem with it... being gay himself... so why would anybody else (specially heterosexual people) feel offended by it?
Anyways, this user used the word "gay" as an expression of "stupid", and was warned:
Ok then, you're acting according to your rules, then.... why didn't this user get a warning too?
And just as a curious note... a staff member used a more offensive word related to homosexuality to insult random people over the internet... again, as an expression of "stupidity".
So... if it's a rule, if it's something that people get warned for...
Why is it that certain users can do the same and not get punished? Why is it that a staff member can do it?
By the way, I reported both posts... and nothing was made about them.
I know this one is quite debatable since according to the rules:
The level you receive depends on the severity of the infraction and the discretion of the moderator. Your current warning level appears under your name in posts and near the bottom of your profile summary. (You don’t see anything if you’re Level 0.) But this is a topic that has been brought up before by me... Why is it that certain users have a warning that lasts less and some others lasts longer than the stipulated time in the rules?
Miacis mentioned it's because of the quote above, and that the warning goes away automatically when it is the proper time... I've said it doesn't, that it lasts longer for some people, but let's trust in the word of our admins.
Now, this user here was rightfully warned after he asked for an ISO:
The thing is he mentioned the 2 weeks had already passed and the warned status was still present.
Why? Wasn't it supposed to automatically go away? Or was the severity of the infraction longer than 2 weeks according to the discretion of moderators?
If asking for an ISO without knowing it's against the rules needs a severe infraction, then I suppose flaming and insulting other users would also need severe punishment...
And so, the staff warned, moderated and muted this user for raging, insulting and flaming.
Now... how much time does each mod status lasts?
Level 1, Warned: Goes away after two weeks.
Level 2, Moderated: Goes away after one week.
Level 3, Mute: Goes away after one week. But he didn't have to go through the complete time of his sanctions.
The Muted level was removed rather quickly and I'm sure the same happened with either the Moderated and/or Warned levels.
Why?
I'm just saying that the times of warned levels should be respected equally, not being longer and not being shorter, specially when the reason of getting it is completely justified, like insulting/flaming.
Moderation Tactics.
This is as recent as it can get.
It's what I consider to be a better approach to warning people.
Instead of going in a warning spree, or deleting posts, a staff member decided to edit the post, and warn the user (by talking, instead of instantly give a warn status).
Then, did the same with the users that were quoting the subject.
In my opinion it's better doing this kind of thing instead of simply delivering green dots and deleting all posts that have anything to do with it.
Now, here's something relevant I want to talk about that was shown in the same chain of events:
So, apparently, we can't use images or videos that could be "bypassing the censor filter"?
What if a song has the word [censored] used once or twice? I'll be instantly warned for it?
And if I use a meme image like "[censored] Yeah"? Apparently I'd get warned because of it.
If that's the case, it would be nice to at least know which words are now censored, because I noticed by mere luck that [censored] and [censored] are now censored, even if they weren't before...
Are Moderators above the Rules?
Exactly that.
I just want to ask if the staff can break the rules, if not, then:
Flaming: Directly or indirectly insulting other members.
Examples: “You idiot”; “Anyone who believes that is a moron”; “Just shut up”; attacking someone based on race, gender, sexuality, etc.
Trolling: Posting with the sole purpose of annoying other users, provoking flames.
Examples: Going into a person’s texture topic and saying “You suck” without offering any actual criticism; posting false information. Spamming: Posting worthless topics or messages that contribute nothing to the topic of the forum or thread.
Examples: Repeatedly bumping a topic; double posting; necroposting – posting in a thread that’s been dead for over a week; posts that consist of just emoticons or text repeated over and over Disruptive Behavior: Posting in a manner that makes things generally unpleasant for other users.
Examples: Posting in ALL CAPS, in topic titles and/or messages; posting illegibly; posting topics in the wrong forum; posting images that are too large (creating horizontal scroll bars or making your post longer than a page); posting unmarked spoilers (game, movie, book, etc). I would also include the "ID theft fad", in which some users including a couple of staff members copied the name, avatar, personal text, etc. of another user in order to cause confusion.
It was annoying to several users, and I'm really sure that kind of action has been hunted down before in this forum.
The reason why I didn't "screen captured" anything of that is because when I finally had the chance to do it, they had already stopped and gone back to normal.
Thanks for reading and paying attention.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #461 on: July 28, 2011, 05:43:43 PM » |
|
inb4 staff, rather than try hopelessly to defend yourselves with rehashed and overall bad excuses that we've seen before, or try to disregard it because "He's from VIP chat" or some other detrimental statement, it'd probably be a good idea to take these examples into consideration when rewriting the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #462 on: July 28, 2011, 06:00:57 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 06:02:34 PM by Himari Naihoro »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #463 on: July 28, 2011, 06:47:37 PM » |
|
While there are many valid points in cx_asuka's above post, many of these things have been brought up on multiple occasions. I will be surprised if anything is done to correct them (or to take proper action on similar future events).
I don't really like bringing up my demotion incident publically, but I can't help it here. By doing this, I'm probably painting a picture of myself being very vain and still dwelling over past events, though this is not the case, I would like to use my situation as an addition to cx_asuka's evidence.
cx_asuka's overall point was to show that the staff on this forum makes judgement that is colored by personal issues and opinions. There is no doubt that when I was on the KCMM staff team that I wasn't a favoured by my fellow moderators. I'm not saying that everyone just went ahead and removed me willy nilly, there were some legitimate reasons (yes, I did admit to leaking information once and I did make modifications to Brawl Vault submissions), while this was enough to remove me from the staff, this wasn't the reason behind my removal. One of the reasons I am not a member of the staff anymore is because I went on a warning "spree" (which in reality, I only warned about 3 people, Hakumen was actually the one who did most of it), while this probably wasn't the best way to prove a point, I was still following rules. The other reason was because I was accused of making more leaks (and even some non-existant ones), which in the end, Hakumen admited she was the one who actually leaked the information.
Now that these two reasons have become invalid, does that mean I have been removed for something that is considered to be in the past? No. Because I have challenged members of the staff on a few different occasions, this made me seem like I had some sort of vendetta against the staff. The only reason left for me not being reinstated is because of personal emotion.
Facts are colored by the personalities of the people who present them.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 06:50:01 PM by VILE »
|
Logged
|
Zephiel:
You know what I really like on my stack smash?
Texture updates.
Androu1:
@Zephiel: “your†Stack Smash?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #464 on: July 28, 2011, 07:13:23 PM » |
|
Nice post, Asuka. Probably wouldn't have said posted it better myself. And to take your time to actually write that all, and snapshot that all shows you care about how the forum is handled. I wish more users would do that too. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 07:15:45 PM by br3compactor »
|
Logged
|
ㅤlㅤ
ㅤlㅤ
|
|
|
|
|
