Message and discussion for all members & guests

Hello everyone.  Sorry if I have been dipping in and out this week, had one of those hectic weeks.  Recently I have read and been PM'd on several issues I would like to comment on, and everyone else is free to add what they may or may not like.

Officers: If we delete a post, can we please either PM the poster on why, or just put a little blurb on there that the post was deleted.  I think I've deleted two on here, and both times I just put deleted by Bryan, XYZ member that was borderline and don't want to get you in trouble.  Do and word it however works for each of you.

And to the meat of the message.  There have been references back and forth regarding the CWU & some members of the CWU.  This will continue.  I know some of you do not like that, but if that union is somewhat our opposite, the topics will somewhat interlace.  Until a day comes that anyone can freely post on that board, with their officers being able to delete posts if they wish, they will continue to be referenced from time to time on the AU. Members in this union are from all walks of life, faiths, or not of faith.  Though our name is The Atheism Union, it is for discussion with everyone.  Items that pop up anywhere else on Gamespot that are of interest, or you think may be of interest feel free to provide a link.  Until I am told otherwise this will stand as well.  I, and the other officers have asked many times before, if you have a problem with a post, please PM one of us.  I think a month or so ago Elraptor made it clear that was the best course of action for the union, and I believe it still is.  We have moderators who are members here, members for 5+ years like myself, and people who joined GS in the last few months that is what makes this board work.  Each of us is equal in the conversation, none better, none less. And I want every member of this union to feel free to discuss what they wish that isn't a TOU violation without worry that our own membership will cause them to be moderated.  We have "infamously" released one member before.  I do not want us to go down that path again, but will if members cannot respect each other or this union.

Thank You,

Bryan

Ok I deleted the link because obviously it's not a good idea. Anyway I find it unfair and immature to be so over-sensitive about matters that have been discussed before thoroughly, Lans being present.

And also I provided the link because I find it ridiculous that the accusations against Gabu evolved around him being a mod, which is also unfair, as unfair and immature are the accusation against him.

Rushing to moderators, to me at least shows that there's something to gain from punishing users this way. Probably they prefer this method over the more civilized and appropriate one, being within the union. Lans could easily PM Bryan and tell him what the problem is (if he hadn't already).

I really can't find another reason why someone would so bad want to moderate someone. Besides it's obvious that Gabu's post had been reported and then the issue was transfered directly in the thread I had linked for further attention. What's the fuss about? Are we battling each other?Aren't we supposed to be here to express our opinions and not be afraid that our slightest comment would be taken as offensive?

I hope this doesn't turn into a  Landsdown bashing thread now... >_>.

Regardless, I haven't seen a post that I have been offended by.  Maybe some CWU members have been. I hope they take this advice and PM the mod or Bryan instead of taking it to Big Brother.

Did something happen with Gabu or Lansdowne that I don't know about?

Did something happen with Gabu or Lansdowne that I don't know about?

domatron23

I made a comment about blackregiment's being (now temporarily) banned that was intended to just be a statement of fact, but it was evidently taken in a different manner and caused Lansdowne and blackregiment to file complaints in Ask the Mods.

That's about it.

I hope this doesn't turn into a  Landsdown bashing thread now... >_>.

Regardless, I haven't seen a post that I have been offended by.  Maybe some CWU members have been. I hope they take this advice and PM the mod or Bryan instead of taking it to Big Brother.

helium_flash

I think the best thing that we could all do is to stay vehemently within the limits of the ToU at all times -- if we adhere to this general principle then nobody can be punished for their posts.

Having said that, the issue regarding Gabu is quite frankly a non-issue, none of his posts mentioning the CWU as far as I know has infringed upon the ToU.

Be smart! Don't play in to the hands of those who keep spiteful vigil on the union.

And since your fairly new here Gabu you may or may not know we've been round and round over this.  If you feel like making your eyes bleed you can read the AU photo album & discussion topics. I guess it's obvious I'm not at all happy this has happened again.btaylor2404

Yeah, I'm aware that this is not the first time.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

I hope this doesn't turn into a  Landsdown bashing thread now... >_>.

Regardless, I haven't seen a post that I have been offended by.  Maybe some CWU members have been. I hope they take this advice and PM the mod or Bryan instead of taking it to Big Brother.

7guns

My only suggestion would be to maybe make someone an officer who isn't Evangical or Atheist who can objectively make the decision.

[QUOTE="7guns"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

I hope this doesn't turn into a  Landsdown bashing thread now... >_>.

Regardless, I haven't seen a post that I have been offended by.  Maybe some CWU members have been. I hope they take this advice and PM the mod or Bryan instead of taking it to Big Brother.

helium_flash

My only suggestion would be to maybe make someone an officer who isn't Evangical or Atheist who can objectively make the decision.

I agree, my only thing is no one has ever even asked for a post to be deleted, at least not to me.  Your second line brings up a very good, sensible idea.  I'll think on that one, and any suggestions will be appreciated.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="7guns"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

I hope this doesn't turn into a Landsdown bashing thread now... >_>.

Regardless, I haven't seen a post that I have been offended by. Maybe some CWU members have been. I hope they take this advice and PM the mod or Bryan instead of taking it to Big Brother.

btaylor2404

My only suggestion would be to maybe make someone an officer who isn't Evangical or Atheist who can objectively make the decision.

I agree, my only thing is no one has ever even asked for a post to be deleted, at least not to me. Your second line brings up a very good, sensible idea. I'll think on that one, and any suggestions will be appreciated.

Sure you could appoint an officer that is neither atheist, nor theist -- but then what would happen if such a person then got into a heated debate with somebody and thereby their impartiality would be in great dispute when dealing with that person.

No matter who you may appoint, their partiality may come into question.

There is no such thing as a completely unbiased user.

Sure you could appoint an officer that is neither atheist, nor theist -- but then what would happen if such a person then got into a heated debate with somebody and thereby their impartiality would be in great dispute when dealing with that person.

No matter who you may appoint, their partiality may come into question.

MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

There is no such thing as a completely unbiased user.

Sure you could appoint an officer that is neither atheist, nor theist -- but then what would happen if such a person then got into a heated debate with somebody and thereby their impartiality would be in great dispute when dealing with that person.

No matter who you may appoint, their partiality may come into question.

Teenaged

I hear you loud and clear -- and that is exactly right.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

There is no such thing as a completely unbiased user.

Sure you could appoint an officer that is neither atheist, nor theist -- but then what would happen if such a person then got into a heated debate with somebody and thereby their impartiality would be in great dispute when dealing with that person.

No matter who you may appoint, their partiality may come into question.

MetalGear_Ninty

I hear you loud and clear -- and that is exactly right.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

There is no such thing as a completely unbiased user.

Sure you could appoint an officer that is neither atheist, nor theist -- but then what would happen if such a person then got into a heated debate with somebody and thereby their impartiality would be in great dispute when dealing with that person.

No matter who you may appoint, their partiality may come into question.

Teenaged

I hear you loud and clear -- and that is exactly right.

I'm thinking that may be the bottom line, as much as I want the situation fixed, this may be what we have to live with.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

There is no such thing as a completely unbiased user.

Sure you could appoint an officer that is neither atheist, nor theist -- but then what would happen if such a person then got into a heated debate with somebody and thereby their impartiality would be in great dispute when dealing with that person.

No matter who you may appoint, their partiality may come into question.

btaylor2404

I hear you loud and clear -- and that is exactly right.

I'm thinking that may be the bottom line, as much as I want the situation fixed, this may be what we have to live with.

...And that's why I avoid the AU photo album like the plague.

It all comes down to what the moderator who deals with the report deems or doesn't deem as being offensive.

That's all too true.

...And that's why I avoid the AU photo album like the plague.

It all comes down to what the moderator who deals with the report deems or doesn't deem as being offensive.

MetalGear_Ninty

What ever happened to "If you have a problem, go to the source"?  In light of things like this I can't believe there wasn't unanimous support when I said I wanted to address jody about getting the the ToU more firmly interpreted in a more accepting fashion.  There are people who consider it a normal and perfectly justifying course of action to try and censor anything they don't like.  When you have people constantly filing bull **** claims, the chances of a mod who either feels compelled by their arguments or doesn't know any better as they are just here for the gaming aspects reaches almost an absolute certainty. 

I mentioned something similar to this in one of my ask the mods threads, but I will restate it here.  Wouldn't some type of punishment for officers who's moderations are over turned along with people who have a history of reporting frivolous request for censorship be punished made everything go much smoother here. I think someone making a conscious efforts to remove my words are 10,000 times more offensive than anything they could say to me.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

That's all too true.

...And that's why I avoid the AU photo album like the plague.

It all comes down to what the moderator who deals with the report deems or doesn't deem as being offensive.

Teenaged

Granted though, that out of say five posts that are reported, only one may be moderated.

I have no doubt that the majority of things posted on the thread will not get moderated -- but there'll always be a few that leaves the moderator questioning their course of action.

Granted though, that out of say five posts that are reported, only one may be moderated.

I have no doubt that the majority of things posted on the thread will not get moderated -- but there'll always be a few that leaves the moderator questioning their course of action.

MetalGear_Ninty

In light of how many post are being reported without merit, isn't this one out of five still insanely high.  

What ever happened to "If you have a problem, go to the source"?  In light of things like this I can't believe there wasn't unanimous support when I said I wanted to address jody about getting the the ToU more firmly interpreted in a more accepting fashion.  There are people who consider it a normal and perfectly justifying course of action to try and censor anything they don't like.  When you have people constantly filing bull **** claims, the chances of a mod who either feels compelled by their arguments or doesn't know any better as they are just here for the gaming aspects reaches almost an absolute certainty. 

 

I mentioned something similar to this in one of my ask the mods threads, but I will restate it here.  Wouldn't some type of punishment for officers who's moderations are over turned along with people who have a history of reporting frivolous request for censorship be punished made everything go much smoother here. I think someone making a conscious efforts to remove my words are 10,000 times more offensive than anything they could say to me.

Sitri_

What ever happened to "If you have a problem, go to the source"?  In light of things like this I can't believe there wasn't unanimous support when I said I wanted to address jody about getting the the ToU more firmly interpreted in a more accepting fashion.  There are people who consider it a normal and perfectly justifying course of action to try and censor anything they don't like.  When you have people constantly filing bull **** claims, the chances of a mod who either feels compelled by their arguments or doesn't know any better as they are just here for the gaming aspects reaches almost an absolute certainty. 

 

I mentioned something similar to this in one of my ask the mods threads, but I will restate it here.  Wouldn't some type of punishment for officers who's moderations are over turned along with people who have a history of reporting frivolous request for censorship be punished made everything go much smoother here. I think someone making a conscious efforts to remove my words are 10,000 times more offensive than anything they could say to me.

Sitri_

Sitri_, we obviously agree here.  And my contempt may be as high as yours seems to be.  And that's what it is with me now, anger.  It's not that hard to PM me or any officer, don't get the result you like go to the mods.  On your petition I think it's a good idea, sorry I forgot to vote and mention it.  I dobut much will come of it, but I do think it's a sound idea and I will support it.

Maybe the only option is to make it clear to all members, that due to the nature of this union, there will be some things said that may be offensive to theists, and if they have a problem they should go to the officers or mods ofthis union.

And if worst comes to worst, we might have to expell some people who are ruining the thread by refusing to be civil about their problems. I would rather expell deviant posters than be tolerant to everyone who at the same time ruin the union.

Maybe the only option is to make it clear to all members, that due to the nature of this union, there will be some things said that may be offensive to theists, and if they have a problem they should go to the officers or mods ofthis union.

And if worst comes to worst, we might have to expell some people who are ruining the thread by refusing to be civil about their problems. I would rather expell deviant posters than be tolerant to everyone who at the same time ruin the union.

helium_flash

And the second has already happened with a member and no matter how I am all for doing it, still we all know that there will be less conversation in the union that way; now what "kind" of conversation they can provide?... well that's a entirely different issue...

Maybe the only option is to make it clear to all members, that due to the nature of this union, there will be some things said that may be offensive to theists, and if they have a problem they should go to the officers or mods ofthis union.

And if worst comes to worst, we might have to expell some people who are ruining the thread by refusing to be civil about their problems. I would rather expell deviant posters than be tolerant to everyone who at the same time ruin the union.

helium_flash

True on the first point, but I think that will just cause said members to watch and report even more.  The second, well I addressed that, and it didn't work out well the first time, we don't want to censor anyone's opinions, but would like for people not to get fellow members in trouble.

It's all within the ToU.

If anybody reports the union too many times without reason they will penalised for abuse of the reporting system whichshould be an adequate deterrence.

It's all within the ToU.

If anybody reports the union too many times without reason they will penalised for abuse of the reporting system whichshould be an adequate deterrence.

MetalGear_Ninty

I think the biggest problem here is that there's basically no way to prevent someone from reporting something if they don't like the decision made in the union (or to even get someone to bother with the union tribunal idea in the first place). It's not like Judge Judy where we can get people to sign waivers saying that, while it isn't an official court of law, the decision made is still final.GabuEx

But say if a user continually reports without sufficient reason to do so, aren't they going to be moderated for abusing the reporting system?

But say if a user continually reports without sufficient reason to do so, aren't they going to be moderated for abusing the reporting system?

MetalGear_Ninty

Well yes, but that's contingent on the people handling the reports feeling that there was not sufficient reason for making the report.

Well yes, but that's contingent on the people handling the reports feeling that there was not sufficient reason for making the report.

GabuEx

Each time a report is filed can you see the others that person has filed, or do you just kind of remember certain ones for certain people?   If a person, or cartel, has a tendency to report certain people or certain boards, that would be the type of passive aggressive behavior that might be easily overlooked if there is no way to see an easy history of other complaints.

I think the biggest problem here is that there's basically no way to prevent someone from reporting something if they don't like the decision made in the union (or to even get someone to bother with the union tribunal idea in the first place). It's not like Judge Judy where we can get people to sign waivers saying that, while it isn't an official court of law, the decision made is still final.GabuEx

I think this is the moral of the story guys & gals.  As much as I'd like a bit of "honor or loyalty" there is nothing that can be said or done to change anyone's mind on what they may want to do.  We'll all just have to watch what we say as best we can.

Each time a report is filed can you see the others that person has filed, or do you just kind of remember certain ones for certain people?   If a person, or cartel, has a tendency to report certain people or certain boards, that would be the type of passive aggressive behavior that might be easily overlooked if there is no way to see an easy history of other complaints.

Sitri_

Yes, we can see the person who made the report, precisely for that reason (so we can tell when someone is abusing the reporting system).

Gabu or Elraptor, let me ask you both another question.  How many officers are sufficent for a growing union of this size, currently there are 5 of us including me.  I'm assuming the mods have seen many good union's that run well and I truly have no idea. I asked it in ask the mods and got a very unhelpful answer.  Guess I went to the wrong place.  Or anyone else can answer if your in another thriving union for that matter.
btaylor2404

I imagine you got an unhelpful answer because we don't know any more than you. :P  Knowing how to run a successful union is not exactly one of the qualifications of a moderator; I really would have no idea.

Gabu or Elraptor, let me ask you both another question.  How many officers are sufficent for a growing union of this size, currently there are 5 of us including me.  I'm assuming the mods have seen many good union's that run well and I truly have no idea. I asked it in ask the mods and got a very unhelpful answer.  Guess I went to the wrong place.  Or anyone else can answer if your in another thriving union for that matter.
btaylor2404

I imagine you got an unhelpful answer because we don't know any more than you. :P  Knowing how to run a successful union is not exactly one of the qualifications of a moderator; I really would have no idea.

Thanks, Felix misplaced the "Running a Good GS Union for Dummies" book before he left.  Just wanted an idea, I'll look at other unions to find my answer. 

[QUOTE="Sitri_"]

Each time a report is filed can you see the others that person has filed, or do you just kind of remember certain ones for certain people?   If a person, or cartel, has a tendency to report certain people or certain boards, that would be the type of passive aggressive behavior that might be easily overlooked if there is no way to see an easy history of other complaints.

GabuEx

Yes, we can see the person who made the report, precisely for that reason (so we can tell when someone is abusing the reporting system).

But can you see that person's reporting history or you just kind of remember when you field a problem?

But can you see that person's reporting history or you just kind of remember when you field a problem?

Sitri_

There's no "reporting history" per se, but yeah, we tend to have good memories. :P

[QUOTE="Sitri_"]

But can you see that person's reporting history or you just kind of remember when you field a problem?

GabuEx

There's no "reporting history" per se, but yeah, we tend to have good memories. :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Sitri_"]

But can you see that person's reporting history or you just kind of remember when you field a problem?

Thessassin

There's no "reporting history" per se, but yeah, we tend to have good memories. :P

There's no ban quota :P

Only master mods and admins can ban anyone. GabuEx isn't an MMOD, so even if there were a quota, he can't help meet it.

[QUOTE="Thessassin"][QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Sitri_"]

But can you see that person's reporting history or you just kind of remember when you field a problem?

subrosian

There's no "reporting history" per se, but yeah, we tend to have good memories. :P

There's no ban quota :P

Only master mods and admins can ban anyone. GabuEx isn't an MMOD, so even if there were a quota, he can't help meet it.