The Times, They Are A-Changin'

[atpollard]

o:

Do you honestly think that it's "detrimental to the community" here to post a link to another discussion forum that people might be interested in? Do you not think your userbase is smart enough to make their own judgements about the merits of this and other boards? Or maybe you just do not trust them to make their own decisions about that? I've looked at the SFRPG boards and they certainly do not strike me as being a "replacement" for anything, they're just another place to talk about science fiction roleplaying games, including Traveller - and a very civilized one at that. I think you've just prompted me to register there, in fact. Oh, what damage have I done to this community!

I am also troubled by the arbitrary nature of this "rule" that was never made official, particularly given that it involved banning people. If you ban people for mentioning that board, then why not ban people for mentioning others (including Mongoose's own Traveller boards)? I myself have opined that Mongoose's Traveller boards are a better environment to discuss Traveller than here, as have others; are you going to ban me (and them) for that? Seriously? I would hope that the new management is not so paranoid (and vindictive?) to allow this to continue, and that they immediately rescind this policy and allow people here to judge forums on their own merits and post links to other boards freely.

And even if people do want to "move" away from here to other forums (for whatever reason), then who are you to limit their options? If you don't want them to move away from here then I would say that it is up to you to give them positive reasons to stay. Now that there is new management in place, you have a perfect opportunity to make some changes that can do just that.

Please tune the negative sarcasm down just a notch.

Mongoose Boards are a great place to discuss Mongoose Traveller, but a poor location to discuss creating a rifle in FF&S for Traveller:TNE. Or god forbid one wanted to point out some task that Classic Traveller did better than MgT. The moderators at Mongoose would have no problem with it, but a handfull of fans would verbally tar and feather you as "another MgT hater".

The SFRPG board is a lot of fun as long as you grow a thick enough skin to not feel intimidated by the palpable hatred there for COTI, Hunter Gordon and (to a lesser degree) Marc Miller.

All of this is just to point out that each site has strengths and areas that could be improved. But pouring verbal gasoline onto fires has never helped any problem.

I like COTI.
YMMV

Arthur

 

[Supplement Four]

I'd much appreciate it if you did and got back to me when you have. I (and I'd dare say others) are looking for ideas to improve the site.

Here's two ideas.

1st: I suggest that the Warning not be the first step of a mod. It's combative. I think the first step should be a friendly PM asking the poster to revise his post.

If he defies, that, then slap a Warning on him.

I will most always comply with a friendly suggestion, even if I don't agree with the reason I'm being asked to edit it.

I'm sure others are the same. "Hey man, why don't you change that bit about blah, blah, blah. It could be seen as an insult to some of the members reading the forum."

That's about all it would take for me to say, "Oh, OK. I don't agree. But, what they hey, I'll change it."

If the member is an ass after you've asked him nicely, THEN pull out the big stick and zap him with your Warnings and Infractions.

Try the carrot before the stick.



2nd - If you don't go with what I've suggested above (and I highly recommend you do), then why not at least remove the Warning or Infraction if the member immediately edits or removes his post to remove the offensive part?

I think my first suggestion will work better, but if the mods simply have to keep pounding people with Warnings and Infractions over silly things, then have a system where the Warning or Infraction is removed once the poster says, "Oh? OK, sorry. I'll change it."



Most of my problems with mods have been because of two things: A - the mod slapped a Warning or Infraction on me for something I think is silly and should not be worthy of a Warning or Infraction.

Or, B - the mod came off like a jerk on a power-crazed trip when the Warning or Infraction was given. That type of behavior does not encourage compliance.

Both of my suggestions above are aimed at reducing that friction AND complying with board rules and mod requests.

 

[Blix]

The SFRPG board is a lot of fun as long as you grow a thick enough skin to not feel intimidated by the palpable hatred there for COTI, Hunter Gordon an(to a lesser degree) Marc Miller.

I do see one active thread commenting about CotI there - clearly that is a sore point for some there (I note that CotI isn't very favorably viewed on Mongoose's boards either though). But so what? I could equally say "CotI is a lot of fun as long as you grow a thick enough skin to not feel intimidated by the Mongoose hate here". People have their own agendas on every board, and CotI is definitely no exception and for all I know they're quite justified in not liking CotI there, especially given the fact that people were banned here for mentioning them in the past.

However, I also see a vast majority of threads about scifi related topics on the SFRPG boards that do not mention CotI, Hunter Gordon, or Marc Miller. I don't see any evidence of "intimidation" or of anyone's attitudes towards CotI affecting those threads at all. I just see a lot of interesting discussion. Maybe their attitude toward CotI can push people away from there who care about such things, but it's not like it permeates the entire board (to be fair, I don't think CotI is really so bad either, so long as one stays away from the Mongoose board and from certain users here).

I guess all of this demonstrates is that CotI is no better or worse than them in that regard.

I still don't see any reason why people here should be punished for posting links to any other boards though. And I really don't get this idea that one has to like one board exclusively and not consider going anywhere else. Why should it not be possible to frequent both CotI and any other boards at the same time? They're not "homes" or "nations" or anything, they're just places on the internet to talk about RPGs that we like, aren't they?

 

[Blix]

1st: I suggest that the Warning not be the first step of a mod. It's combative. I think the first step should be a friendly PM asking the poster to revise his post.

I agree with this. Having received a Warning myself I found them to be extremely unfriendly, confrontational, and generally unhelpful. Getting a friendly PM first would have been much less hostile.

Again there is inconsistency here. One mod at least seems to fire off the Warnings at the slightest perceived misdemeanor, while other mods discuss the issue via PM first.

 

[far-trader]

Sorry S4, nope, those ideas aren't going to work.

1 - It takes too long to go through a long drawn out PM dance.

2 - Experience has taught it doesn't work most of the time anyway. Resulting in lost time, frayed tempers, and the Warning or Infraction, or more, that should have simply been applied immediately to stop the problem in it's tracks.

3 - All users signed up to read and abide by the rules. The rules are enforced by the Warning and Infraction system.

4 - In all fairness there is no way we can keep track of who responds to friendly suggestion PMs and who doesn't to know who should get special treatment. And special treatment isn't fair.

5 - And I could probably easily go on into double digit reasons but I'd just be wasting my time and yours

The system is the way it is handled. Period. It's not combative unless you take it that way. No more so than a parking ticket for being illegally parked. The Warnings and Infractions are NOT the big sticks. Banning is THE BIG STICK. The perma-ban one is made of duralloy and requires both hands to swing. The temp-ban one is foam rubber and most people don't even feel it.

Carrots are for encouraging good behaviour, not for correcting bad behaviour.

If you don't go with what I've suggested above (and I highly recommend you do), then why not at least remove the Warning or Infraction if the member immediately edits or removes his post to remove the offensive part?

Again, the Warning and Infraction are the result of bad behaviour. The Warning is the offender's cue to review the post and correct the problem or face an Infraction. That means editing your post appropriately asap. If you don't, won't, or too much time passes a moderator will be forced to edit it for you and upgrade it to an Infraction. An immediate Infraction means you've already gone too far for a Warning and removal or editing the post isn't going to help, in fact a moderator has probably already done that.

IF under the new appeals system a Warning or Infraction is found to be incorrect it will be reversed. Just as they have been in the past under the old appeals system.

It is the member's obligation to know the rules and abide by them. We shouldn't have to hand out any Warnings or Infractions at all, in a perfect world. This isn't a perfect world though. Warnings are reminders to refresh your awarness of the rules and correct yourself. Infractions are stronger reminders of the same.

Both of my suggestions above are aimed at reducing that friction AND complying with board rules and mod requests.

I do appreciate the intent, and even the suggestions despite rejecting them. The friction is imo a result of not understanding the rules. I hope I've done a little to clear that up.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I find the current SJGames forum to be nearly flame free. In fact, it's one of the most friendly places I've encountered on the web.

That's probably true now, but there was a time when lots of venting took place.

 

[Blix]

No more so than a parking ticket for being illegally parked.

The thing about using that analogy is that if the attendant is still there, most people don't just shrug and accept the ticket; they go talk to the attendant about it (and sometimes the attendant waives the ticket or lets them go before it's "official"). And if the attendant comes across the person while they're illegally parked then they can usually be persuaded to let them drive away without giving them a ticket. If the attendant has already gone (or is being particularly stubborn and unreasonable) then most folks just curse and pay it anyway because it's a fait accompli by that point.

In the case of a Warning, the mod is still there to talk to, and most of the time they ought to be reasonable about it and not turn their backs and say "tough, you got a Warning".

 

[far-trader]

...I still don't see any reason why people here should be punished for posting links to any other boards though.

Again, they aren't. For reasonable links. The only punishments handed out were for unreasonable behaviour. During a time before your membership here.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Sorry, it was some other intolerant GM. :smirk:

That wasn't me.

*snip*

Heh, okay, my bad.

 

[far-trader]

The thing about using that analogy is that if the attendant is still there...

Which is where your application of the analogy breaks down. The poster is usually gone. The moderator won't be around when they come back.

Your analogy of the two crossing paths is where the poster on the board has just posted and realized they crossed the line and are in the process of editing their post. That's happened and in those cases the Warning or Infraction is usually not issued or quickly removed.

In the case of a Warning, the mod is still there to talk to, and most of the time they ought to be reasonable about it and not turn their backs and say "tough, you got a Warning".

Again no, the two rarely cross paths immediately enough to make that work. The rules are clear, you screw up you get a Warning and are expected to review your post and correct it.

If you honestly think a mistake was made, and they have been, then politely reply to the Warning explaining or asking about it. You'll get a polite reply and possibly even have it removed, it has happened. Just like your comparison of sweet talking a parking enforcement officer while they're looking at your illegally parked car. Get angry, abusive, self-righteous and what do you think will happen, in both cases.

 

[Blix]

Again, they aren't. For reasonable links. The only punishments handed out were for unreasonable behaviour. During a time before your membership here.

So will you change this rule now? Not that it was a formal rule to start with, since it was an arbitrary act by the former owner of the site. Or at least formally clarify what this "unreasonable behavior" is?

As for Warnings, I don't think that boards should be run by mindless robots blindly enforcing rules and handing out "parking tickets" to people. And I don't see what is so bad or time-consuming about initially sending a PM to someone saying "hey, can you please change your post, it's over the line for (whatever reasons)". It's certainly less threatening than slapping a ticket on their head and branding them with a Warning.

 

[Colin]

In a sense, that's what a Warning is. It's an Official PM that a post was over the line. It has no long term ramifications or repercussions. Two Warnings (or twenty) do not equal an Infraction. Infractions, however, have teeth. Three Infractions within a limited span of time get you a one-day Ban. A cooling off period.

 

[Supplement Four]

As for Warnings, I don't think that boards should be run by mindless robots blindly enforcing rules and handing out "parking tickets" to people. And I don't see what is so bad or time-consuming about initially sending a PM to someone saying "hey, can you please change your post, it's over the line for (whatever reasons)". It's certainly less threatening than slapping a ticket on their head and branding them with a Warning.

I agree. No offense to Far Trader, but he is coming across to me as if he doesn't want to lose the power to give the "parking tickets".

Doesn't that line of thinking avoid the reason we have mods in the first place? The point is to have a nice, friendly place to discuss Traveller, yes?

As with any forum, people are going to get out of line and piss other people off. It is the mod's job to find ways to limit this behavior and keep the peace.

It's not the mod's job to hand out the parking tickets. That should be a tool used only when necessary. Mod's shouldn't have king-of-the-hill syndrome.

I found Far Trader's response to my post pretty discouraging, and the "focus" of what a mod is supposed to do seems a bit skewed.

I don't see anything wrong with acting politely first, then slamming the guy with the parking ticket if he doesn't comply when you ask nicely.

Why jump immediately to the parking ticket? It's like slapping a guy in the face and then expecting him to smile at you, "Because dem's the rules!"

All the parking tickets do is make the CotI member mad at the mod. If I were a mod (and I wouldn't be if asked), I sure would try to diffuse situations before screaming at members like they were three-year-olds and stuffing a Warning or Infraction in their face.

Don't pull out the big stick unless the member deserves. Certainly don't lead with it.

Lead with the carrot.

It'll be a more pleasant place around here.

 

[Supplement Four]

In a sense, that's what a Warning is. It's an Official PM that a post was over the line. It has no long term ramifications or repercussions. Two Warnings (or twenty) do not equal an Infraction.

If that's the case, then why not just use a friendly PM first instead of that parking ticket-ish Warning that comes across so confrontational, especially when the mod is vague about what the Warning is for.

I'm sure not everybody, but I think most people, will respond better to a polite PM rather than an in-your-face-me-police-you-not-ticket-looking Warning.

I know I respond a lot better to polite reason than I do someone who is spitting in my face and expecting me to smile at them.

 

[Colin]

Here's two ideas.

1st: I suggest that the Warning not be the first step of a mod. It's combative. I think the first step should be a friendly PM asking the poster to revise his post.

If he defies, that, then slap a Warning on him.

I will most always comply with a friendly suggestion, even if I don't agree with the reason I'm being asked to edit it.

I'm sure others are the same. "Hey man, why don't you change that bit about blah, blah, blah. It could be seen as an insult to some of the members reading the forum."

That's about all it would take for me to say, "Oh, OK. I don't agree. But, what they hey, I'll change it."

If the member is an ass after you've asked him nicely, THEN pull out the big stick and zap him with your Warnings and Infractions.

Try the carrot before the stick.



2nd - If you don't go with what I've suggested above (and I highly recommend you do), then why not at least remove the Warning or Infraction if the member immediately edits or removes his post to remove the offensive part?

I think my first suggestion will work better, but if the mods simply have to keep pounding people with Warnings and Infractions over silly things, then have a system where the Warning or Infraction is removed once the poster says, "Oh? OK, sorry. I'll change it."



Most of my problems with mods have been because of two things: A - the mod slapped a Warning or Infraction on me for something I think is silly and should not be worthy of a Warning or Infraction.

Or, B - the mod came off like a jerk on a power-crazed trip when the Warning or Infraction was given. That type of behavior does not encourage compliance.

Both of my suggestions above are aimed at reducing that friction AND complying with board rules and mod requests.

As the Mod who gave S4 the most recent Warning that he is complaining about here, let me explain. The rules of the board are very clear in terms of politics outside of the Pit: NO POLITICS OUTSIDE OF THE PIT. Not even as a joke. It is far too easy to mistake someone's intentions. It is also far too easy for someone to slide something in and then fall back on the "It was a joke" defense. Ain't gonna wash, either way.

As I have said repeatedly, a Warning has no consequences, other than being copied to all Moderators. That way if there is a dispute, the other Mods can see exactly what was said. Removes the possibility for creative interpretations. It's official, and there is a record. Unofficial "friendly" PMs have a habit of blowing up in unexpected ways.

Consider the Warning to be the friendly reminder.

And in this case, since the post was edited, the Warning was removed.

 

[Colin]

If that's the case, then why not just use a friendly PM first instead of that parking ticket-ish Warning that comes across so confrontational, especially when the mod is vague about what the Warning is for.

I'm sure not everybody, but I think most people, will respond better to a polite PM rather than an in-your-face-me-police-you-not-ticket-looking Warning.

I know I respond a lot better to polite reason than I do someone who is spitting in my face and expecting me to smile at them.

Because it also creates an official record for the other Mods, in case of further dispute. Also, as Far-Trader has said, and I just repeated above, all too often, the friendly PMs do not work, or cause further problems. I've tried that route, too.

The method to deal with offenses against the board rules is the Warning/Infraction system. That keeps everything official, and as above board as it can get.

 

[far-trader]

So will you change this rule now?

What's to change. It wasn't a formal rule, it's not in the FAQs, the site is under new management. The FAQs themselves are going to get an overhaul to make things clearer.

Or at least formally clarify what this "unreasonable behavior" is?

I can't even imagine where to begin with that. Do you have any idea what something like that would entail? Are you familiar with The Golden Rule? (He who has the gold rules?) No, the other one. Let that be your guide and I doubt you'll ever have a problem here.

As for Warnings, I don't think that boards should be run by mindless robots blindly enforcing rules and handing out "parking tickets" to people. And I don't see what is so bad or time-consuming about initially sending a PM to someone saying "hey, can you please change your post, it's over the line for (whatever reasons)". It's certainly less threatening than slapping a ticket on their head and branding them with a Warning.

Thanks, next time I'm in OZ I'll know what to ask The Wizard for :nonono:

I've explained the problems with PMs being used. Colin's explained it now too. If you don't get it from that I don't see how else I can get the point across.

As for being branded with a Warning or Infraction. I've also explained this before, istr in a thread you were active in but maybe not. So once again, there is no stigmata. Nobody except the member receiving it, mods and admins see the Warnings and Infractions. The only way anyone else knows is if the member decides to brand themselves by ranting about it in an open forum. And that usually attracts another Warning or Infraction since they generally aren't at all reasonable about their choice of words in complaining about it.

 

[Blix]

I guess it was too much to hope that there'd be a willingness to turn over a new leaf here. I supposed I was kidding myself to think that this is a case of "new management"; the management is exactly the same and most likely will keep things exactly as they are despite the obvious problems. The only difference really is that there's a new distant figurehead in the background who most likely will never have anything to do with the running of the board.

Oh well. I can see I'm wasting my time here.

 

[Supplement Four]

As the Mod who gave S4 the most recent Warning that he is complaining about here, let me explain. The rules of the board are very clear in terms of politics outside of the Pit: NO POLITICS OUTSIDE OF THE PIT. Not even as a joke. It is far too easy to mistake someone's intentions. It is also far too easy for someone to slide something in and then fall back on the "It was a joke" defense. Ain't gonna wash, either way.

The post I was responding to referred to politics (the one written by Far Trader). His didn't receive a Warning. Niether did any of the other posts, as the topic being discussed was whether or not to bring back the pit.

So, you singled me out among many.

And, I'll point out that section of my post was that I don't favor bringing the pit back.

As I have said repeatedly, a Warning has no consequences, other than being copied to all Moderators.

But, it pisses off those who get the "ticket". You've had two people just tell you that.

My point remains: It seems backwards logic to piss of the person whom you are trying to get to comply with your request.

A more polite post from you, and I wouldn't be angry about what you wrote.

Consider the Warning to be the friendly reminder.

But, it's not friendly.

And in this case, since the post was edited, the Warning was removed.

Thank you. I edited it because you didn't respond to my complaint and Far Trader asked nicely.

I didn't see the issue. I wasn't trying to upset anybody. But, if a mod sends me a PM and politely asks me to do something, I have no reason not to.

It's the "tickets" and brow beating that I object to.

As I've been saying, polite reason goes a long way with me.

I'm sure it will work with most other people, too. You don't have to hit them with a Warning and then try to covince them that the Warning is "polite request".

It's not.

Because it also creates an official record for the other Mods, in case of further dispute.

How about creating a polite, standard, "request" as a first move then? Something that creates a record like the Warning.

Step two is the warning--or worse, if the CotI member is a jerk and non-compliant.

Also, as Far-Trader has said, and I just repeated above, all too often, the friendly PMs do not work, or cause further problems. I've tried that route, too.

Pardon me, no offense, but this sounds like an old, grisled, third grade teacher defending why she's so hateful to her class. I'm sure that sometimes friendly PMs don't work, because people are hot. But, I bet if you counted them, they work more often than not--and, you're thinking of the fewer times that they didn't. In those cases, the Warnings probably didn't work either.

The method to deal with offenses against the board rules is the Warning/Infraction system. That keeps everything official, and as above board as it can get.

So, in this new era of a friendly board, create a Friendly PM/Warning/Infraction System.

As I stated above, the Friendly PM can be set up like a Warning, just worded less confrontationally. Then, follow up with the Warning, or jump to the Infraction, as needed, if the friendly nudge didn't do its job.

All mods get a copy of the Friendly PM, just like they do a Warning. Everything is above board.

I think you'll find this works a lot better.





It's simple people skills, really. I'll give you two messages down below. You tell me which one you would rather receive.

"Hey Colin, would you mind editing your post because some people may not know you're joking with that remark you made about Obama voters. I'd appreciate it if you would revise your post. Thanks!"



Or this message...



"YOU HAVE RECEIVED A WARNING AT CITIZENS OF THE IMPERIUM

Reason: Politics/Religion Outside the Polital Pulpit.

I'm not going to tolerate you even joking about this. Fix your post and make sure it never happens again."



Which one of those messages makes you say, "Oh, OK. No problem. I'll fix it in a jiff."

And, which one makes you say, "Who do you think you are, you butthole. I may change the post, but I'm really starting to dislike you...a bunch."



And, the million dollar question: Which one is better for the board? The one that puts friction between mods and members? Or, the one that allows mods and members to act together for a better board?

 

[Blue Ghost]

Blix, you aren't wasting your time.

I think a good rule of thumb is to not game the BBS, and if you're going to post a link, then think whether the game and its players will benefit, or if that link will draw away from the fanbase.

There's lots and lots of Traveller knock-offs and wannabes out there now. My goodness, I've seen RPGs with hefty doses of Traveller flavoring that are competitors to this system. And we have to look at it as a business, and we are the patrons. You don't really mention Burger King too often when talking to the cliental at McDonalds'. Because, hey, the management might ask ya to leave

I've seen the other systems, and, well, meh... I'm having a hard enough time scrounging up players for this system, so why would I bring up competitors?