Leaderboard

I've seen you state many times across your posts about a clear outlining of the subject matter needing to be addressed in the rules. However, if we started this approach, we'd be going with an endless list of every subject or phrases that you can't say/use and anything that isn't in that, that we've missed we will be slated for. that seems like the system you're going for. Do you feel this an unfair assessment of what you're referring to and asking for? Instead, we use the rules as area guidelines and expect people to use their common sense with certain subject matters. That way, with incidents such as these, we warn the offender(s) with what area/rule they have broken and why. From what I've seen in the IA channel since this all happened, is Voe putting out the same continuous message of not to post such content and sticking to that. An emoji isn't really comparable to the content that's being moderated, and we've not had anyone complain about it. But if you do have a complain about it, then feel free to raise it in a separate thread and we'll all discuss it. What and where do you feel the inconsistencies are being made from the repeated message being acted upon? Your reference to Alp making an example and it containing context with hate speech was actually explained to you at the time. It feels like you've either taken that quote out of context intentionally or weren't in the correct frame of mind to understand what he was trying to explain to you. The example he stated was in reference to the approach of moderation, that it's not an instant heavy handed approach, but a more cautionary and softer approach at first. If this is intended to be taken out of context, it feels like you're grasping at straws to bolster your argument and make the situation seem worse than you can initially make it out to be. I think we've covered the first 3 paragraphs here (Unless you feel there are aspects that haven't been covered?). But to be clear, we can add some better clauses on how rules are handled so it's clearer on the approach we take to moderation. If this would clear up better on why actions such as these are taken, then great, if not, then why not? We've covered the rules parts with our approach already. You're argument about things someone has done in the past not being applicable doesn't really hold up, unfortunately. A profile is going to be drawn up against someone who is repeatedly causing trouble, it doesn't just disappear or not come into light when said person does another action that causes trouble, I'm not sure where or what would follow such a system. I don't think Voe explained the issue here very well in that chat log, but he can defend himself with that. I know that Sith has been flagged a lot with pushing the limits on what's acceptable. He's not the only one, but he does enjoy doing more often than others, and is louder about it. Why is this incident the one that made you make this post? If this is something that's been going on for so long and you feel so strongly about, why haven't you reported it to anyone higher than Voe? As you've mentioned in Discord, you're a long standing member of this community, you've been around long enough to know how this works. I'm just confused by your approach of conversation in the IA channel and now this post before acting in any other way.

From what I've seen so far, Voe has handled correctly. It might seem ''lame'' that he's also moderating things like the video name, but due to the recent situation where several members broke the rules despite warnings, it is necessary to sometimes ''overdo'' it in the eyes of the public. Just so that the unwanted behaviour stops. If we were to draw a very specific line in the sand, there will be community members who will try to surf that line and slowly bring it down, which is an unacceptable option. As for the Sith situation, I'm not too much up to speed on that one so I will refrain from commenting on that.

Hello DVD. I know you've not come here to talk to me, but i feel entitled to make my points, before leaving the subject to others. First of all, you should be aware of the main purpose of our moderation team. It is not to enforce a strict set of rules. Our primary agenda is to maintain peace within the community, as well as to keep our forums, discord and game servers inclusive for as wide an audience as possible. With this in mind, we pay closest attention to those, who threaten this peace and inclusivity - trolls, shitposters, racists, radicals, and so on. While occasional out-of-the-line humour often ends with a slap on a wrist, it becomes a completely different matter if such behaviour becomes prolonged, repetetive or intrusive. As such, the criteria for unacceptable behaviour are, indeed, somewhat flexible. The current state of the IA channel is, at best, unsavourable. We've received numerous complaints from both community members and staff about the quality of conversation within. I should point out at this point, that the reason why IA channel has been, thus far, treated differently to other W3D channels in terms of moderation standards, is that IA as a project enjoys relative autonomy within W3D. The moderative discrepency has been intentional, until now. About two months ago I've been asked to rein the channel in, so that it is compliant with the rest of the server. And this is where we are now. Onto sith_wampa. First, I'm disappointed he isn't posting this thread himself. I don't quite understand what is your stake in this matter, as you've never been a target of moderation yourself. Second of all, both sith timeouts have been issued on the exact same basis - discussing ejaculates in the channel. It is disingenious to call out the first timeout as fair, while ignoring the fact that he's done the exact same thing again, once the first timeout expired. It is only fair to moderate the same thing the same way. Third, let us not pretend as if sith is an innocent, well meaning community member, who's a target of some personal vendetta. He's had a long history of in-game offenses and arguments, which, while irrelevant in the topic of discord punishment, nonetheless shine a light at the type of personality we're dealing with. Here's an example from a few weeks back: How does this comply with our rules of "Be polite and contribute constructively!", or "Be respectful of other users!"? Because I can tell you that it doesn't. For why that matters, I refer you to the first paragraph of this post. That's it from me. Let the others do the talking. PS: Havoc's post was deleted for being unsavoury. He hasn't been punished in any additional way.