Officer Charter & Chat

I concur with Mr Alucards. We need an opinion from GS before we go any further...

Otherwise all our endeavours could be futile.

We need an official judgement as to what would happen if we removed an "illegal" post or member.

Alucard: It's not just a feeling, it's how it is. As you've seen, we keep racking up things to ask the Mods. Indeed that is the point of these discussions as you've noted..we have a good idea of what we want to do already.

After dealing with the Mods, we should be able to discuss what they had to say on those key issues and (perhaps) put a plan into action. There is the possibility that another round of Mod planning could be needed..but we'll just have to see about that.

Even still, we need to decide on what we 'think' *want* would work (just assumig it all passes and they'll enforce it), get it down then ask a Mod about those plans and the concerns we've voiced thus far. Then another draft can be created. That's the idea of this approach anyway.

The scenarios already roughed out should, with a little refinement be enough to "ask the mods" about.

What concerns me a little is that saying to the mods, "We wish to rule ourselves and moderate from within" may make them think, "Why. What are they, at this union of ill repute, up to that makes them not want to have the mods involved"  

The result of this could be that we are scrutinised even more closely as a result of trying to avoid "official involvement"

In essence, mod sweeps are bad, m'kay? Telling the mods we do not want them involved in our affairs may be more likely to get them involved, or at least curious.

Let us think carefully about the questions we will be presenting to them.

My earlier post needs adressing. 

I am unaware of the extent of the powers of the leader. Perhaps I should look it up or perhaps Mr Alucards or Mr SK can advise....

Can he remove any member that he sees as unfit for Union life or not?

From what MrSk has said I am still not certain on the low, middle, high tier of offences. 

Low = being a ****. Contravening the ToS Being continually offensive or needlessly argumentative = warning, told to shape up/fly right or there will be consequences

Is mid level = to a repetion of a low level offence = Action = not flagging  *ideally* I need clarification as to what action      *if any* we can take against the offender.

High = defying our rules *clearly outlined from the start in the "rules, read them then post" section* and our requests/commands to cease the problematic behaviour = gone, banhammered from TUGOWU.

Your thoughts, gentlemen. Mr Kuro, your input would also be appreciated...  

NOTE: I just finished replying and "Submit" sent me to the ****ing first page. WTF is that ****? I neglect to copy the post beforehand foolishly thinking there wouldn't be a glitch and....there was. Hilarious.

Indeed.

That isn't how we'd word it nor would it reflect our current plans accurately.

Not really an issue. We're clean as is. They should think of it as trying to avoid harsh 'hits' such as a flag. This is us being "kind" here afterall.

They're bothersome perhaps but not all bad. Were it a 'wiitch hunt' or deliberate attempt at taking the place down, it would obviously be unwelcome. The regulars have a clean record and shouldn't worry over such things. With our attention to the ToS and updating the rules with serious consideration we should be held in higher esteem then most other unions that JUST leave things to chance or flag away. A few are lucky enough to have a Mod in their ranks with interest in their union. THAT would be a nice asset would it not? One with a mindset like our own that looks out for TUGOWU? A powerfully ally.

NOTE: I've considered setting up invites for such individuals but the idea is on a back burner...it requires much more consideration.

Of course.

Oh?

I can only say so much. Alucard would have a better idea I suspect.

A leader can do that but cannot KEEP the user away. There are locks to the floodgates so to speak but they too can be worked around. A 'blacklist'..a place to put users that are not allowed to rejoin..would be a nice new feature we would have reason to suggest/support where appropriate don't you think? Would allow suspension/bannings in the union without 'official backing'. Basically enabling "high" without further deliberation needed. Though even that can be worked around (sockpuppets)...it's a start. Not like our Moderations truely effect the user. At best a Mod could see their 'history' and notice they aren't favored.

Then let us have exchanges about that. You ask, I'll explain to the best of my ability.

Low - That's a better description of 'Mid' actually. "Warnings" are basically us using the "Moderate" feature on a post and telling what they did wrong. Low is more of a heads up sort of deal where we will explain what they did and ask that it be corrected/not be met with further incident. (a nicer warning) We could of course just handle the EDIT/DELETION ourselves.

Mid - Repeating offenses certainly will land this tier. Flagging's role here is uncertain. You do know what the abilities of the Officer (given by the Leader) are don't you?

High - Correct. Defiance is swiftly 'rewarded'.

You seem to have figured it out pretty well. I have no major arguments with your conclusions.

~Also, I was under the impression that we required approval from an Officer/Leader when a new person attempts to join the Union? While it's not foolproof it seems that most of the time, if good 'research' is done by the officer approving, we will be able to use that to prevent previously removed users from returning? 

Kuro: The idea is to eventually open the TUGOWU floodgates again however. It doesn't feel right to be as we are now. So this system (which doesn't exactly flow through us officers without fail..) won't last forever. Consider this...a user need only have their own foot in the door to invite a bunch of sockpuppets themselves. That easy.

Alucard: Understandable.

"Delete" is like a forced resignation...that they are totally able to get around (especially with open membership). The system for finding/removing users is trash as is. They should at least let us type their name down and give results..thus we click who we meant (as if we would be vague) and send that person packing. With a 'blacklist' that account would STAY gone. I'd like for non-Mod/Admin, non TUGOWU members to NOT be able to even see our place at all...but that just isn't an option afforded to us by GS...a true pity.

Union Moderation would leave a note in their history (no penalty), perhap delete the post while leaving a cutsey message (like official actios) and pass on the idea that said user just got a 'hit'. So like a real mod hit in all ways but the ability to lead to any true penalties in GS like suspensions/bans.

I've had relatively little direct contact with GS mods but have a fair idea (in all listed regards) of how to deal with them.

You should be looking over those links I put into the updates Rules thread (page 1)...they aren't throwaway links afterall..

It would appear, lamentably, that the time has come to shed casual attire and don clothing suitable for SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Other tabs must be closed, focus on the task in hand.

If a felonius poster's membership of this union is deleted and they are able to return with a different identity then should this really concern us? Their true colours will be shown soon enough.

Contravene rules, account deleted. Return, contravene rules .... 

I can live with that cycle if other people can. I have a high threshhold of boredom. Who will become tired first?

So gentlemen, what remains to discuss?

We have high, low and mid tier offences established. Sure a little detailing remains to be done.

We need GS's word on "union moderations". there is no point going further with the matter until it is okayed  in principle.

As MrSK alluded to a "pet Mod" would be nice, handy even....

Yes, this is begun for selfish reasons, but I believe it is a valid suggestion.

I believe that for Progress threads, the multiple posting rule should be revised. Perhaps something like... 

After 3 edits/updates, a new posts can be made? Otherwise often times you end up with excessively long posts, and if there's something that player particularly needs help with, they won't be able to call attention to it, and must wait  for one of the helpful gents of the union to check it of their own volition. 

Kuro: You bring up a good. Point..currently we do bend a bit for such occassions already but it is sort of a 'feel it out' ordeal that isn't well defined. We'll certainly have to dicuss at. Right now, I cannot think of a way to properly address. Could just be that it is nearly 2AM here and I need sleep. Hard to tell.

Gent: Quite right.

I'll keep my other tabs open. I can take it.

We'll certainly want assurances/suggestions on how to treat such a situation IF and WHEN it happens. That's the idea anyway. To prep ourselves to handle any given situation to the best of our ability....with a proper preparations and all. With their return, they could still cause a bit of trouble. A remote chance if we all emotionally distance ourselves before posting..and don't leap at the chance to give said user any grief for the fun of it. (as foreign as that idea may be to the kinder among us). With a new identity...less so. With the same identity..it could be quite a bit more annoying being an open act of defiance.

Sounds disturbingly easy when put that way..

Hard to say. But it isn't about keeping you or the rest of us entertained in such a case. It's about TUGOWU. With regulars that cannot be shaken out of it or moved by the actions of others..it can endure...to a point..

I trust you've gotten a decent handle on these 'tiers' then.

Shall we clarify further?

We need their word on a few matters really..

Perhaps not the most tactful way to put it but yes. That would certainly be to the advantage of all involved (who are worth considering)

Kuro's point is a good one. In "TC's run" type threads double posting should be okay. Not so much for progress updates but if new advice/assistance is required then it may be a way of attracting the other members attention.

 Once more for clarity, what would a mid level offence be?

Gent: Basically the things you considered low level. (as said before) Obviously there would be more then one way to get a 'Mid'. I lack the presence of mind to pull examples out of thin air. Name a few cases (preferably similiar whilst differing in severity) and I'll place them in a tier..perhaps with a sample 'handling' of each offense.

I understood Kuro's point. We've yet to really discuss such a thing...it would likely be yet another thing to ask a mod about as double posting in of itself could be considered a ToS violation. (what isn't amirite?)

I see. It would seem my devil may care attitude means I view things too leniently.

i don't want to bring this up but what of Kuro's recent transgressions?

You were half right, exalted leader.

As MrSK alluded to earlier then kuro's punishment should be harsher BECAUSE he is an officer. 

Gent: Perhaps you haven't yet noticed but I'd alluded to a sort of warning to Kuro but also stated the tier system has yet to be incorporated and thus cannot find it in myself to punish him or anyone else (within said systems *WIP* guidelines). Lucky boy got a freebie you could say. He knew it wasn't allowed but did it (as an Officer) with the position of 'other's do it'. That would be Mid-level in all probability.

I've forgotten what I'd suggested in regards to Officers but indeed they would have to get hit harder then Recruits. One has to wonder how this is addressed with a Leader though....Alucard. Care to weigh in? It's a curious situation isn't it? One can't very well briefly take away the Leader's position without risk of failure in the action or (possibly worse) failure to reinstate said person.

Part of the idea for harsher punishments against the likes of us is to help dispell the idea that such users are favored elites with extra power..users that will get preferential treatment to a Recruit in such a case. Having it equal is nice, but having it be a bit beyond helps sell the idea that we are the standard barers...to an extent anyway.

Alucard: For now it's considered a freebie until the system is in place. Though the 'warning' was dealt..it doesn't count per se as a Mid.

Correct.

A good way of putting it.

Alucard: It would have to be that way (temporary *unless you land a 'High'*) or where the Officers could be seen as 'balanced' the Leader would retain the perception of a user corrupt with power/privelage *absurd I know*. Should a Leader refuse to punish themself, what then?

Clearly this won't be an issue with you nor would we willingly allow a person we could not trust as Leader..but still the question remains..one that is perhaps not possible to give a good answer too. Hope for the best? A mod can't really step-in for such a thing..they can Moderate or even ban that person..but not enforce our union rules for us here.

Lets not get too bogged down in hypotheticals.

Alucards is as safe a pair of hands as could be wished for.

He has been a member for a long time and was enthroned by Gamespot themselves.

I think we can rest safe in the knowledsge that if Alucards were to "lose it" and transgress the rules then he would be the first to hold his hands up and admit he was wrong.

 There is no point in wondering what other people may do in that situation because Alucard is leader and will continue to be so.

savvy? 

Gent: You are incorrect. To be savvy with that is to believe a falsehood.

Alucard is indeed among the safest hands that Leadership could fall to..but that doesn't mean he will always be Leader. I'd rather address such conerns when I think of them.

Alucard: But there is nothing a mod can really do in such a case other then judge the 'High" offense itself. We could add this to the list of things to bring up but I can practically see the response..

As is, an Honor code is all we have...that and a fair say in WHO gets to be Leader. Usually.

A day may come where you find it necessary to pass Leadership over briefly/permanently...this is a thing I wish to plan for. Say the person you give power (briefly) misbehaves...or more (to me) annoyingly just keeps the position with absolute refusal to return power. In the case of a permanent change there is just that once concern..them getting into trouble and refusing to give up the position. Be it here they act up (where they should lose power) or elsewhere...as their record gets ugly, their chances for being banned as Leader increase.

~Certain ToS violations have to be given a higher status then others. Things that could easily be an immediate ban could be passed as Mid for all BUT the Leader as there is no huge issue with a banned Recruit/Officer. In the interest of the union, the instant the Leader does such a thing, they should switch the power over (to be safe) and at least face a Mid tier punishment. We would have to talk out each rule with this considered. Get a feel for it...and likely run into even MORE things to ask Mods about..joy of joys.

We are indeed deaing with a rare breed.

EDIT

Enough prevaricating action is required.

We have low, mid and high roughed out. Before we go further with this we need a nod from the mods on our "inside moderation"

therory. Mr SK I am looking in your direction.

DP time.

Is anyone else aware we have three pages worth of incoming membership requests?

Alucard....FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

~You clowns better remember to 'screen' or don't approve..we aren't set-up for that just yet

NOTE: I suppose I'll put off AotF in favor of getting this rolling (since the other is established it should be easy to return to)..

What's the exact procedure you want us to follow for this? Perhaps a checklist?

~Started looking at some, am1damaru, other than being somewhat annoyingly obsessed with gaining levels on GS, gives me no reason to suspect foul play and seems be be a good enough GoW fan. Perhaps we can persaude him to play some more if he joins.

--Do you want us to update you on each, or should we just research and approve/deny while being extremely careful? 

I'd prefer the latter. If concerned, give me namedrops.

~I couldn't be less excited/motivated to look at this word document again..

~Some of these people seem to not actually like GoW that much... is that enough reason to "Deny"? For instance, from what I can tell one person has only played CoO, and they rated it a 7/10. I don't think they really need to be here at the moment, they could come once the "Floodgates open" if they want to. I didn't "Deny" because I wasn't aware what we're supposed to be doing exactly. For the current "closed" state of the union, are we just looking for people who seem genuinely interested and may contribute, or do we want to let everyone in who doesn't seem to be a troll/returning unsavory character?

I think perhaps a balance. I will approve people who seem to geniunely like GoW and are not suspicious characters. Acceptable? 

Only reject those that are as you put it.."unsavory". Ignore those who aren't that interested like the one you described or you're uncertain about (at which point I should look into them). The ones who appear most interested are to be watched that much closer.

~The 'Floodgate' will stay as is until things are ironed out to our liking

True enough.

~The run. How goes it?

Now, now Kuro. Cut the man some slack.

~Don't expect me to remember why you aren't progressing too long without posting a schedule of sorts about when you'll be busy in a given day through the week. I too will be wrapped up in college affairs soon (again).

How about I just did it anyway and I don't give a ******* **** what you say?

Just thought I'd put that in there.  

Not sure who you were addressing there.

~You've been to College, haven't you Alucard? I'm not certain that "God of War is important" counts as a lecture.