BattleForums suggestion thread.

[Renzokuken]

Well, i'd have to agree with Crookedfoot 110% We are never going to delete the Asylum or merge it at this rate (which i am against), so why not make the compromise? (I haven't read coRt's thread yet)

 

[Amantis]

Another thing though. We are *not* tyrannical. We close/move threads and ban people for a reasonable reason (if there is such a thing). Unlike Blizz Forums, we do not close threads just because ' we don't like the user' (yeah, we've had that plenty of times before when some of us were there).

- Amantis

 

[Renzokuken]

...and we do not want to become tyrannical. I just get a feeling that Silynt's suggestions make us feel that way...

 

[Silynt Rage]

Mav... did you read that conversation that we had the other night? I figured I expressed what I had to say best to you... just to get your take on the idea.

 

[Maverick]

Yes I did and I let Amantis read it too. Well I agree about locking up the Asylum temporarily and make announcement of why we did that action. Explain to them that idiotic flamming cannot be tolerated and those who will flame outside the Asylum will be warned and if they ignore it they will have a vacation. We would just inform them that if they should flame someone they must do it in a wise manner and has a valid and heavy reason in doing so. Then when everything is settled we could unlock it again. That's just a suggestion which Rage was trying to point out. But it is still a suggestion. It's a good idea. But Cort's idea is good too. Putting up a mod there and let's see what happens first. If it can't be solved with the moderator/s maybe we can use Rage's suggestion as a secondary initiative.

 

[Silynt Rage]

Do you still have the conversation? I'd like to copy and paste it in here... at least the portion that makes the most sense ... I may have it around here somewheres.... I'd have to look for it.

 

[Amantis]

After reading the conversation that Maverick has shown me, it seems that your ideas were best expressed there Rage. No, this is not sarcasm. In fact, I agree with all your ideas there. It is only a matter of seeing how it can be put into practice step by step.

- Amantis

 

[Silynt Rage]

Thank you! Finally! haha... I'm going to read the conversation and post up how I want my idea to go.... based on that... it's more a methodical proceedure rather than giving a mod a job or whatever... So here it is...

Basically I've looked at the common goal here... my goal is to get rid of the flames... your goal is to keep the asylum.... (ultimately my overall goal since the begining) so my idea is kind of how we can do both and keep the asylum, and reform it back to what it once was.

The first thing is... is we need to close the Asylum up, (NOTICE: this does not mean get rid of the asylum, it just means close it up for a while). Once that closes up, I realize you all are concerned about the fact that they will flame outside of the asylum... correct? well... that's where you all come in... your job is to do your job, every moderator knows that flames belong in the asylum... so report the post accordingly to a higher power.

As a moderator you will warn the individual and if they proceed with their actions of flaming. If they complain about not being able to get into the asylum, that is not your problem. Tell them you had nothing to do with it... and just because the asylum is closed, does not mean that it's their right to flame outside of it. If they proceed with flaming you will again report it to a higher power. At this point in time, the person is given a weeks vacation, this isn't a 3 strike policy. Their first warning is their only warning and it's a warning that shouldn't have to be given in the first place, everyone on the forum knows the rules and if they don't, they should be directed to them at the time of their warning.

here is the link to the rules of the forums in general.

Now, just because they've been given a weeks vacation... this does not mean an apology cannot accepted at this point, it's a judgement call on how much they've been flaming and how much hastle they gave you at the time they got their vacation.

An e-mail of some sort should be provided to the address provided in their profile, letting the offender know that they have been banned from Battleforums due to accessive flaming, and they can reply to that e-mail if the so choose. DO NOT tell them that they have the opportunity to apologize... they can do it on their own. If they choose to bark at you, then they can keep their week, if they apologize... re-activate their account and we haven't lost anyone. If the person comes back and starts to flame again, they will again get another warning, something along the lines of... "this is your final warning, if you don't stop flaming, you will permanently be banned from Battleforums". Ultimately we're looking for the person to apologize after the warnings, not after the bannings. If they choose to proceed with a permanent ban, then what's the big deal at this point? we've warned them twice, gave them a vacation once... and they still proceeded, in my opinion, we're just losing a flamer, and in the same kind of way, it is a 3 strike policy...

First warning
First vacation
second warning
Permanent ban.

While all this is going on, the rules for the asylum should be being changed (Cort... you, me and some of the verteran members can have a meeting about these rules). Basically the rules will eliminate any member from flaming another member. Explain what flaming is as well... give a definition, maybe even an example. But not infringe on the idea that the asylum was created so that the everyday person didn't have to see offensive things, or very controversial topics in the chit chat forum, or entertainment zone. The asylum should be a place that you can go to, to talk about things that you can't in other forums, anything off-color, or off-topic, controversial topics. Always remember HEATED CONVERSATION/ARUGING IS NOT FLAMING. Flaming is direct shots at another member (I.E. - You are ghey, F*ck you you stupid bastard), basically stupid rediculous meaningless posts other than to jab at another member

When we've determined who the major flamers are on the board, it makes it that much easier to keep track of them when we decide to open the asylum back up.

Like I said, my idea isn't about removing the asylum, and it's not about removing members... it's about removing flames, however if you have to get rid of members to get rid of flames, then I'm for it, we don't need it.

A WARNING SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN OUT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ANOTHER MODERATOR WITHIN YOUR FORUM. This eliminates grudges. Zaku is very good about that with me in my forums, he comes to me and says "hey, what do you think of this?" and I tell him and sometimes I think it's nothing, sometimes I fix it myself, sometimes I let him fix it. But a warning should only be given after consulting another moderator, wether they're a moderator of your forums or not.

This has to be a team effort or it's not going to work... it involves watching over your forums like a hawk... and it involves talking to your staff members of your section and it involves talking to cort, so if you haven't talked with any of those people, talk to them, get to know them better... or talk to someone who is a moderator along side of you that has, get comfortable with your superiors... they're good guys... I promise.

 

[Crookedfoot]

Deep down, I'm all for this.
But I see a problem that with the one week vacations.

Habitual flamers such as, FlammingPamma came back under new member names, within minates of account banning.
Same as others for different offences.
Really an account, and IP ban is the best way to go, or it's just a revolving door.

Cort, is there any way that IP ban can be added to Staff abilities?

 

[TrongaMonga]

Sylent, very well said. That will probably solve the problems. But, why should give them 1st warning, and not ban him at first.

We give him the warning. If he continues to do it many times (we can allow sometimes, like a convo in the heat of the moment, but not too much usual), a second warning with a week vacations that was mentioned on the first warning. At third, permanent ban.

 

[Silynt Rage]

well, the warning helps sort out the new members of the forum, new forum members are just ignorant, they don't know the ropes yet, but guys like Pamma, that's an IP sort of thing, if you see a newbie flame, it's not that big of a deal... it's guys like pamma and Sgt. Slice that create the havoc

 

[TrongaMonga]

True, there are some seeds of desctruction among the users of BF. Some users, like sgt.Slice, pamma, and racoon, he as well, now, that are actually getting some kind of followhing thugs. Meh, those guys suck at flaming, but for some reason people seem to find they funny.

Anyways, Rage, would you mind to post the convo here?

I've heard it was quite clarifying.

 

[Silynt Rage]

I don't mind at all but it's the basics of what I just said...

MavAssassin (10:01:32 PM): rage i just wanna clear this up that i was mad but not anymore
Silynt Rage (10:01:39 PM): alright, then I'll explain to you
Silynt Rage (10:01:49 PM): let me finish in there though
MavAssassin (10:01:56 PM): this is for the sake of the argument
MavAssassin (10:01:58 PM): okies?
MavAssassin (10:02:01 PM): peac out man
MavAssassin (10:02:03 PM): continue
Silynt Rage (10:04:22 PM): I'll explain to you.
MavAssassin (10:04:28 PM): k
Silynt Rage (10:04:33 PM): then if you feel like it
Silynt Rage (10:04:35 PM): you can explain to them.
MavAssassin (10:04:49 PM): okies
Silynt Rage (10:05:04 PM): Basically, the removal of the asylum isn't permanent...
Silynt Rage (10:05:09 PM): in fact, you don't have to remove it at all
Silynt Rage (10:05:16 PM): you can lock it up, so we don't lose post counts or anything
MavAssassin (10:05:23 PM): good
MavAssassin (10:05:25 PM): idea
Silynt Rage (10:05:26 PM): you know, whatever...
MavAssassin (10:05:26 PM): okey
Silynt Rage (10:05:30 PM): at that point
MavAssassin (10:05:34 PM): and if it's locked?
MavAssassin (10:05:39 PM): what will be the announcement?
Silynt Rage (10:05:45 PM): wait
Silynt Rage (10:05:54 PM): let me finish my idea
MavAssassin (10:06:00 PM): ok
Silynt Rage (10:06:02 PM): we'll worry about the specifics later
MavAssassin (10:06:06 PM): i won't type until you're done
Silynt Rage (10:06:10 PM): okay...
Silynt Rage (10:06:20 PM): okay once the asylum is closed, or removed or whatever...
Silynt Rage (10:07:00 PM): we watch who flames outside of the asylum...
Silynt Rage (10:07:04 PM): and who flames outside of it...
Silynt Rage (10:07:19 PM): like I said... gets like a weeks ban... if they apologize for flaming, then by all means, let them back on
Silynt Rage (10:07:35 PM): but like I said, repeated offenders will be kept track of and banned permanently accordingly
Silynt Rage (10:08:04 PM): I think you are with me on the fact that we don't need flamers on the board, it just clutters threads and is really of no use... I think you are in favor of keeping the asylum
Silynt Rage (10:08:41 PM): okay
Silynt Rage (10:08:42 PM): now...
Silynt Rage (10:08:59 PM): while we filter out the people in our forums who are flaming...
Silynt Rage (10:09:12 PM): we change the rules of the asylum... flaming each other won't be tolerated...
Silynt Rage (10:09:17 PM): just as it isn't in any other forum...
Silynt Rage (10:09:45 PM): we believe that the morale of the forum should based on good relations, not bad ones.
Silynt Rage (10:10:17 PM): therefore the asylum then becomes flame free....
Silynt Rage (10:10:34 PM): consquently putting it back where it was when we first signed up
Silynt Rage (10:10:40 PM): and it should clean up the forums a little bit.
Silynt Rage (10:10:44 PM): flame wise...
Silynt Rage (10:11:02 PM): and of course the asylum would have to be heavily modded for a while...
MavAssassin (10:11:09 PM): i see
Silynt Rage (10:11:10 PM): after
Silynt Rage (10:11:16 PM): but like I said, it's not about removing the asylum.
Silynt Rage (10:11:18 PM): or members...
Silynt Rage (10:11:24 PM): it's just trying to remove the flames
Silynt Rage (10:11:34 PM): and the best way to do it is to threaten the members with what they fear most...
Silynt Rage (10:11:36 PM): elimination...
MavAssassin (10:11:51 PM): i see
MavAssassin (10:12:00 PM): i'll save our convo
MavAssassin (10:12:04 PM): coz i have to go
MavAssassin (10:12:06 PM): is that ok?
Silynt Rage (10:12:07 PM): hey
Silynt Rage (10:12:10 PM): post it on the board if you want
Silynt Rage (10:12:13 PM): you have my permission
MavAssassin (10:12:17 PM): i'll read it first
Silynt Rage (10:12:20 PM): everyone isn't quite grasping my idea...
MavAssassin (10:12:25 PM): i mean read it an understand
Silynt Rage (10:12:27 PM): they think I'm out to kill the place.
MavAssassin (10:12:31 PM): layterz man
Silynt Rage (10:12:42 PM): later mav...


There it is... like I said, the basics of what I just typed up.

 

[Zaku]

I must agree with SilyntRage on this matter. Everyone knows I spent my time in the Asylum when I first joined. But now when I look back on it. It was out of control back then. Its even more out of control now. Closing the Asylum for while sounds like a good idea to me until Cort decides what to do with it.

 

[TrongaMonga]

Ok, now I have another suggestion...

c0rt, can't you ask Chris to add a closing option to spliting threads? We can already move it, but i'd be great if we could move it closed. And a redirect thing as well. It'd save plenty of steps to moderators.

 

[Renzokuken]

Close the thread, then move it

If you want to split it also. Close, split, then re-open. Not that hard

I r good at moderating.

 

[Crookedfoot]

Yes he is, that's why he makes the big bucks.
Expect a raise of 20% in your next paycheck.
Just don't cash it till next Thursday.