Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

More serious discussions, information about official DDNet servers, important announcements.

Should rule 11 be removed?

Please note that results are sorted by decreasing number of votes received.

Yes
21
55%
No
17
45%
 
Total votes: 38

Pathos
User
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:30 pm

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by Pathos » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:06 am

Personally, I think admins can have the final say, while mods do not, unless there is a separate, clear ranking type of a mod (maybe it could be the highest mod rank?) that is given the authority to have the final say.

@Ryozuki: instead of absolutes, as in "remove yes or no" answers, why not add an option for a change? I think adding a bit about transparency would be nice. There can be a public mod log set up, and mods are required to log their bans and reasons.

Shishigami wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:38 pm
Personally, I think the rule is perfectly fine as-is, but I'd like to see more transparency from staff.
I often read complaints in the forum that will be closed due to rule 11, but then you never hear if or what is being done about it.
I agree with this. Transparency is the best way to go. This might call for a helper -- a PR person. It should be someone who can summarise the admins' group chat discussions and deliver it in a digestible way for the public or what have you.

Ravie wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:41 pm
I think showing all potentially controversial topics going on inside DDNet publicly is just asking for more pointless drama.
Yep yep, you can easily think of a couple of names from the forum.

jao wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:55 pm
As someone with more insight than probably anyone else, I can say that almost everything that gets to us is discussed.
There is a concern with what you're saying here. The problem with discussion is that there can easily be a bias in discussions within the admins/mods. Without proper management skills, group discussions can lead to undesired outcomes--undesired by the ones who are discussing. You should not underestimate this.

hi_leute_gll wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:22 pm
That's also the reason why I often post aggressive, provocative posts, because it is the only chance to force admins to proper answers. I would prefer to just discuss on a normal base, but it is not possible.
Off topic, but I think that would have an opposite effect of your intentions.

Ryozuki wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:12 pm
Put governments for example, there is always the opposition, and the one with power, usually in normal countries with "normal" democracy the opposition can speak freely. Yet the power will have majority and thus the final vote.
Also off topic reply, but this isn't entirely true. There are plenty parts of a government where the citizens are not directly involved. The easiest example would be selection of prime ministers.

heinrich5991
Technical Team: Coder
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by heinrich5991 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:51 pm

Removed some spammy answers.

heinrich5991
Technical Team: Coder
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by heinrich5991 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:04 pm

I feel like this belongs here:
DiscordShow
Discord wrote: [11:15 AM] Ryozuki: @heinrich5991 why you close <snip>
[11:15 AM] Ryozuki: it was such an interesting discussion
[11:16 AM] Ryozuki: @heinrich5991 it starts looking like gg kid has the reason: <snip>(edited)
[11:17 AM] Ryozuki: <snip>
[11:17 AM] Ryozuki: <snip>
[11:18 AM] Ryozuki: atleast you cannot prevent me from discussing this here :)
[11:18 AM] Ryozuki: <snip>
[11:21 AM] Ryozuki: i am coming to the conclusion myself that the rule about not discussing about staff members is a complete injustice and really unfair. You don't notice the injustice until it affects you, but since you are an admin @heinrich5991 i guess you don't even notice
[11:22 AM] onby: thats what i said a long time ago
[11:22 AM] Ryozuki: and i'm copying this text and saving it, ill repost it everyday to make you remember this is unfair(edited)
[11:30 AM] Ryozuki: lets change this rule
[11:30 AM] Ryozuki: <snip>
[11:30 AM] DanilBest: lol
[11:32 AM] onby: <snip>
[11:33 AM] Ryozuki: they even moved the thread
[11:33 AM] Ryozuki: to a more hideable site
[11:33 AM] Ryozuki: sec i find it
[11:33 AM] Ryozuki: <snip>
[11:33 AM] Ryozuki: u can read it all there
[11:33 AM] Ryozuki: ofc they ended up closing it
[11:34 AM] Ryozuki: due to rule 11 of user guidelines
[11:34 AM] Ryozuki: which im gonna make a post now against it
[11:37 AM] onby: "Moderators and administrators have the final say on anything."
lol
[11:37 AM] Shishigami: well thats pretty normal
[11:37 AM] Ryozuki: read the rule completly
[11:37 AM] Ryozuki:
11. Moderators and administrators have the final say on anything.
If you have a problem, you may make a complaint to them directly and not publicly on the forum. Creating threads or posts that question or reference administrative decisions or potential administrative decisions, such as post removals and thread closures, is not permitted. We are not perfect and if you feel that we have made a mistake, please privately contact a staff member and we will review the situation.
[11:38 AM] Ryozuki: @onby thats the thing
[11:38 AM] onby: yea i think the last part could be a problem
[11:38 AM] Ryozuki: but i'm not even user about Moderators and administrators have the final say on anything.
[11:39 AM] onby: well by definition its true because theyre the ones with power
[11:39 AM] onby: but i dont think it means they have to censor all complaints
[11:40 AM] Amu~Cookie: I don't see any problem, it's normal.
[11:40 AM] Ryozuki: put goverments for example, there is always the oposition, and the one with power, usually in normal countries with "normal" democracy the oposition can speak freely. Yet the power will have majority and thus the final vote
yes2
[11:41 AM] Ryozuki: but censoring the oposition is not good
yes2
[11:41 AM] Ryozuki: never
[11:41 AM] Amu~Cookie: you are funny comparing a game to a government(edited)
[11:41 AM] Ryozuki: nice argument
[11:41 AM] fokkonaut: good morning
[11:41 AM] Amu~Cookie: it's not comparable
[11:41 AM] fokkonaut: What are you discussing
[11:41 AM] Amu~Cookie: hello
[11:41 AM] Ryozuki: i think it is completly comparable
[11:42 AM] ChillerDragon: Ddnet leader
[11:42 AM] fokkonaut: me
[11:42 AM] Amu~Cookie: we are discussing the combat of Ryosuki for democracy because he don't like the way ddnet is handled
[11:42 AM] onby: [4:41 AM] Amu~Cookie: you are funny comparing a game to a government(edited)

thats how an analogy works ..
[11:42 AM] Ryozuki: it's Ryozuki
[11:42 AM] Ryozuki: not ryosuki
[11:42 AM] fokkonaut: I dont like it too
[11:43 AM] fokkonaut: jao can decide everything
[11:43 AM] Amu~Cookie: there is your right
[11:43 AM] fokkonaut: bad
[11:43 AM] Shishigami: @onby thats not a good analogy however lol
[11:43 AM] Ryozuki: why not
[11:43 AM] Ryozuki: explain further
[11:44 AM] Ryozuki: well it's true we all can agree that ddnet resembles more a dictatorship than a democracy
[11:44 AM] Amu~Cookie: rofl
[11:44 AM] Shishigami: if blizzard decides that they dont want to sell a subscription to you anymore, you can make a fuss all you want, its their good right
but no one thinks north korea is okay
its a completely different thing
[11:44 AM] Ryozuki: this is not a corporation or company
[11:44 AM] onby: no one is saying ddnet administration is as important as real life governments its just an example of how power is divided in different systems wtf
[11:45 AM] Amu~Cookie: If we play a game it's not for talking about politics
[11:45 AM] Ryozuki: @heinrich5991 what you think
[11:46 AM] Ryozuki: it's not politics imo, its the way administration works
[11:48 AM] Amu~Cookie: you can say your opinion to admin they will listen. But if they choose to not agree with you. you don't need to cry and scream dictator
[11:48 AM] Ryozuki: "admins will listen"
[11:48 AM] Ryozuki: yeah closing every thread about them is listening
[11:48 AM] Amu~Cookie: why not asking in private then ?
[11:48 AM] Amu~Cookie: they will listen
[11:48 AM] Ryozuki: i like open discussions where everyone can give his opinion
[11:49 AM] Ryozuki: and imo it shouldn't be private
[11:49 AM] Ryozuki: i think everyone should know what administration is doing to judge if they are doing correctly or not
[11:50 AM] Ryozuki: there are sure some things u want to keep private such as password etc
[11:50 AM] Ryozuki: but lot of decisions dont involve that
[11:50 AM] Ryozuki: they ofc prefer people to not know and keep them ignorant
[11:50 AM] Ryozuki: thats why they want private discussions about staff
[11:51 AM] Ryozuki: and their only argument is that it can start witch hunting
[11:51 AM] Ryozuki: but they can use their moderative power
[11:51 AM] Ryozuki: to prevent that
[11:51 AM] Ryozuki: and imo its worth even with witch hunting
[11:51 AM] onby: [4:48 AM] Amu~Cookie: why not asking in private then ?
thats the whole point of this conversation
[11:52 AM] onby: that requiring all admin complaints to be private could be a bad thing
[11:52 AM] Amu~Cookie: I think you are taking thing too seriously
[11:52 AM] Amu~Cookie: And what i saw from the closed thread, that's is was meant only to spread hate on someone
[11:53 AM] Ryozuki: please this thing about "dont take it too seriously" i find it ridiculous, ddnet has a big community that imo administration should be taken seriously
👍1
[11:53 AM] Ryozuki: there is also a lot of decisions in ddnet, map releases, new features, etc
[11:55 AM] onby: next time a user has a problem the admin should just tell them its an online game and dont take it seriously
[11:55 AM] Ryozuki: but don't worry, this chat will soon be filled with another convo and be forgotten forever, that's what happens with most of this discussions
[11:56 AM] Amu~Cookie: because people don't care maybe
mmm2
[11:56 AM] Ryozuki: :face_palm:
[11:58 AM] Amu~Cookie: but now I wait to see if we are getting censored. Because you said they censor us
[11:59 AM] Ryozuki: if you mean in discord, i think you didnt read it all
[11:59 AM] Ryozuki: im talking about the forum
[11:59 AM] Amu~Cookie: you can still read the closed thread
[11:59 AM] Amu~Cookie: and you can still discuss here
[11:59 AM] Amu~Cookie: where is the censor
[11:59 AM] Ryozuki: as i said, discord discussions go fast and get forgotten soon, thats why i think they wont bother deleting this
[12:00 PM] Ryozuki: the censor is that you cannot continue the discussion
[12:03 PM] snail: its funny because you wanted us to ban prankster from here and to "handle his stupidness" (how is that different from censorship?) you even blamed us for not doing anything when he started trolling in there, but when he continues his troll on forum and gets locked its a huge drama
[12:03 PM] snail: :thonkery:
[12:03 PM] Ryozuki: thats the thing, he started trolling
[12:03 PM] snail: and you wanted us to actually "censor" him
[12:03 PM] snail: which we didnt do
[12:04 PM] snail: now hes polluting forum so we lock the threads, and you cry
[12:04 PM] snail: OK
[12:04 PM] Ryozuki: he opened a second thread do to you closing the first
[12:04 PM] snail: because it was troll + not following the rule u disagree with + polluting forum?
[12:05 PM] Ryozuki: he broken ingame rules several times
[12:05 PM] snail: he literally wrote a big long ass text to keep on trolling
[12:05 PM] snail: but apparently thats ok on forum for u
[12:05 PM] snail: while on discord he should be instantly censored
[12:06 PM] Ryozuki: prankster was not just complaining about staff but he was being annoying and it is clear that many people complained about his annoyance.
[12:07 PM] onby: if a troll or any other person makes a post on the forum complaining about a ban or something, which looks more suspicious
-the admin replying and saying nah u deserved the ban bcs _
-the topic getting deleted/hidden/locked immediately
[12:07 PM] snail: and is it not obvious that these forum posts are just a way to continue his annoyance?
[12:07 PM] snail: what he says is full of shit
[12:10 PM] Ryozuki: And what you say about <snip>
[12:11 PM] snail: @onby nothing gets hidden or deleted lol, stop making up things
[12:12 PM] onby: i said hidden/deleted/locked because i didnt know which of the three things were happening
[12:12 PM] onby: but its the same idea i think
[12:12 PM] snail: not at all
[12:12 PM] snail: its locked with the reason aka the rule being quoted
[12:12 PM] snail: aka "feel free to pm an admin to solve th situation"
[12:13 PM] snail: its not like it gets locked and then we ignore the guy
[12:14 PM] Ryozuki: go heinrich answer all the questions
[12:17 PM] heinrich5991: the rule about "no discussion about moderation in public" is very common. it's used to stop witch hunts before they start. it assumes that the admins generally act reasonably, but if that's the case, then it reduces the total work load
[12:18 PM] Ryozuki: thanks for ignoring all the discussion
[12:18 PM] Ryozuki: and thats not true
[12:19 PM] Im 'corneum: can someone give me a neutral TL;DR of the discussion this morning?
[12:19 PM] Ryozuki:
Re: User Guidelines

Post by Schwertspize » Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:03 am
in $11 of the User Guidelines

(...) please privately contact a staff member and we will review the situation.

why privately? on SE (Stack Exchange) there is always a Meta Page where you can ask the moderators about why they did somethinf, what is allowed and so on. it would be easy to add such a forum where you can ask these things public because, I quote many forum/mailinglist rules, "everything which is private will only help you and won't help the community"
you can manage it like the staff forum, where you place strict rules.

i think there should be a place where admins have to explain theirselfes to the community, not only to one user.
[12:20 PM] Ryozuki: you can easily implement that
[12:20 PM] Ryozuki: and i'm sure stack exchange is a example as community
[12:20 PM] Ryozuki: (i mean, its a good one, and well done)
[12:20 PM] Amu~Cookie: hmm i'm not sure about that(edited)
[12:20 PM] Amu~Cookie: but yeah it's subjectiv(edited)
[12:22 PM] heinrich5991: shall I follow this thread or shall I also address other questions from today
[12:23 PM] heinrich5991: I feel like doing any of the two could be interpreted as negative
[12:24 PM] Ryozuki: if you can answer why you closed that thread about <snip>
[12:24 PM] Ryozuki: and why you moved it
[12:24 PM] heinrich5991: I closed and moved it due to the rule you know and that I consider sensible
[12:25 PM] Ryozuki: In my opinion there wasn't witch hunting
[12:25 PM] Ryozuki: but ok
[12:25 PM] Ryozuki: now you can answer the quote i made about the meta page
[12:25 PM] heinrich5991: no, but it was "discussion of moderation [or moderators or admins] in public"
[12:26 PM] heinrich5991: we can try it out if you want. you could create that page and if the additional work load seems reasonable, then we can go with it
[12:27 PM] Ryozuki: this problem could easily be solved making a section in the forum where you can make public complains about the staff, ofc they can be moderated to prevent insults etc. I would also like the post about <snip> to be reopened
[12:27 PM] heinrich5991: even on your quoted example, the discussion platform was not inline
[12:27 PM] heinrich5991: to even stop any accusations of corruptedness it would be best if an outsider moderated the forum
[12:28 PM] Ryozuki: i think it becomes quite obvius when someone is making insults or not
[12:28 PM] Amu~Cookie: yes how you draw the limit between public complaint and hate spreading or defamatory
[12:28 PM] heinrich5991: that's the job of the unbiased third party
[12:29 PM] Ryozuki: i would still go for it.
[12:29 PM] heinrich5991: if ryozuki would create the forum, then the usual suspects wouldn't have the rights to do anything there
[12:29 PM] Ryozuki: "everything which is private will only help you and won't help the community"
[12:29 PM] heinrich5991: and if the work load doesn't increase in a way that we can't support, then we can continue doing that
[12:29 PM] Ryozuki: even if there are some discussions that can be difamatory
[12:29 PM] Ryozuki: there are also good discussions
[12:30 PM] Amu~Cookie: I dont think so
[12:30 PM] heinrich5991: cool. let's try it out. create a forum or whatever you want and we can certainly link to it
[12:30 PM] heinrich5991: call it an experiment
[12:30 PM] Ryozuki: why another forum? why not a section in the currentforum?
[12:30 PM] heinrich5991: because it should be out of line IMO
[12:31 PM] heinrich5991: e.g. on stack overflow it's also not the same platform
[12:31 PM] heinrich5991: you have to intentionally click "meta"
[12:31 PM] heinrich5991: for the rust community, there's a dedicated team [which contains no one from any other teams] that deals with complaints with team members
[12:32 PM] Ryozuki: we could try that yes
[12:32 PM] Ryozuki: but who would moderate it
[12:32 PM] heinrich5991: you?
[12:33 PM] Ryozuki: fine
[12:33 PM] Ryozuki: but what if i make the complain
[12:33 PM] Ryozuki: i could also be biased
[12:33 PM] heinrich5991: then you maybe need to find another moderator
[12:36 PM] Ryozuki: but that has a obvius downside
[12:36 PM] Ryozuki: most people wouldnt see the complains
[12:36 PM] heinrich5991: yes, like on the example you showed: stack overflow
[12:36 PM] heinrich5991: but people interested in them can click the link
[12:50 PM] n000b: I am wondering what @Ryozuki point is. I never had/saw a moderator do wrong except not being there, which is obviously not possible all the time. I think the team is doing a fair job and ofcourse people's reasons are questionable some times but you dont know the background of the story most of the time. They try to do their job like they think it should and do what they think is the best in that situation and is the for ddnet.
[12:51 PM] Ryozuki: "you dont know the background of the story most of the time" why we cannot fix that
[12:53 PM] Ryozuki: " I think the team is doing a fair job" and they removed <snip> because of his opinion and nott his actions
[12:54 PM] n000b: For starters the helper role is almost useless so i think he doesn't care.
I removed violations of the rule we're discussing – if you put in the little effort it takes you can find what I removed. :)

I think you should have mentioned this discussion, Ryozuki.

User avatar
mokuz
Contributor Team: Skin Database Crew
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:34 pm
Location: Finland
Player profile: Mokuz
Mapper profile: Mokuz
Clan: Legendary

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by mokuz » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:42 pm

heinrich5991 wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:04 pm
I feel like this belongs here:
Discord wrote: TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEXT
I removed violations of the rule we're discussing – if you put in the little effort it takes you can find what I removed. :)

I think you should have mentioned this discussion, Ryozuki.
Definetly worth reading 10/10 would read again, thanks for sharing

also use spoilers if you have more that 100000 words per quote USE SPOILERS!!!!!!
Image

User avatar
hi_leute_gll
User
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:15 am
Player profile: hi_leute_gll
Mapper profile: hi_leute_gll
Clan: iMTG

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by hi_leute_gll » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:10 pm

heinrich5991 wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:04 pm
I removed violations of the rule we're discussing – if you put in the little effort it takes you can find what I removed. :)
Since they are freely available for everyone, here you go:
<snip>

Just want to comment this part:
[12:17 PM] heinrich5991: the rule about "no discussion about moderation in public" is very common. it's used to stop witch hunts before they start. it assumes that the admins generally act reasonably, but if that's the case, then it reduces the total work load
After heinrich closed the <snip>-thread I contacted him in private. He answered me that he doesn't want to do such discussions. So heinrich wants the people to discuss in private, but doesn't want to discuss. I wouldn't call that "reasonably".

In combination with that:
[12:26 PM] heinrich5991: we can try it out if you want. you could create that page and if the additional work load seems reasonable, then we can go with it
For me it just sounds like admins don't want to do anything. There can't be enough work load for community managment, it is the most important thing on DDNet. But some admins never understood that being an admin isn't just a cool rank, but also means some kind of work load such as discussing with community members...
.hi._.leute._.gll. | iMTGmember

User avatar
Prankster
User
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Europe
Player profile: Prankster
Mapper profile: Prankster
Clan: BlockMark

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by Prankster » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:03 pm

hi_leute_gll wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:10 pm
Some very true stuff
Nicely put, I agree with you, admins don't answer to my pms too and when I make a public topic they just lock it and give me a warning.
And you also said that for some people being an admin is just a cool rank - I definitely agree with you on this one, it also suits some moderators.

SPSomeone
User
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:29 pm
Player profile: SP | Someone
Clan: Somepeople

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by SPSomeone » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:18 am

<snip>
Image

User avatar
meew'
User
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:17 pm
Player profile: meew'
Clan: Möhre

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by meew' » Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:34 pm

ddnet became a joke in the past 6 months playerbase keeps getting smaller and smaller cause the community became a bunch of idiots and this topic is the ultimate proof for that

removing a rule doesnt solve anything
911 mapping police

User avatar
lola
User
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:23 pm
Location: France

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by lola » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:08 pm

I must admit, most people want this rule to be removed. So we remove this rule now and forever. This is my decision. I hope everyone is happy now.

Learath2
Technical Team: Team Leader
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: Removal of Rule 11 in User Guidelines

Post by Learath2 » Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:48 pm

Most of this discussion boils down to transparency and response times, while it is true that we are lacking on both, it's also true that we are actively improving on both:

Transparency-wise, recently we've been doing all the rule discussions on discord, in the #general channel where everyone can respond and state their ideas. This topic itself is a discussion on the rule, where we all are pitching in. I strongly believe that the community should have a say in the rules that govern them, but honestly, It'd be ridiculous to discuss staff behaviour in public. With certain people going around trying to get a rise out of staff there are a lot of false-reports and IMHO it's besmirching and leads to nothing but witch-hunting.

Response time has gotten worse since peoples real lives got in the way all at the same time and there isn't many of us to begin with. To alleviate that gdin joined us again as he has the free time to deal with DDNet issues now and I'll have more free time in a month or so.

Prankster wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:03 pm
hi_leute_gll wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:10 pm
Some very true stuff
Nicely put, I agree with you, admins don't answer to my pms too and when I make a public topic they just lock it and give me a warning.
And you also said that for some people being an admin is just a cool rank - I definitely agree with you on this one, it also suits some moderators.
I was away on vacation, sorry. I've replied to you but I know that it'll lead nowhere. I'll entertain any and every discussion you want when I'm home as long as it is possible that it'll lead somewhere.

You also said you have proof of staff being unfair. I'm sure you do, it's your speciality to bait staff members into making decisions that look bad without context. I still don't get why it surprises you that your reports aren't taken that seriously when we fully know they are specifically crafted.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest