Cleaning up the forums.

[Matt]

These forums have been heading downhill lately, and we're stopping that right now. The new rule #7 is:

7. Do not discuss support rulings of any kind here.

The fundamental problem of running a war game is that conflicts arise all of the time, and each time one does, our support team has to rule on it. When they do, one of the groups involved is going to be unhappy with the result and think the ruling is unfair. Sure enough, a post will end up here on the forums most of the time.

This wouldn't really be a problem except we cannot comment on support rulings to those who aren't involved, including publicly on the forums. We can't tell you why we suspended someone permanently. For instance, we might suspend a player for spamming, but make it permanent due to them having a few previous infractions, but all that ends up on the forum is "they suspended XXX permanently just for spamming." I think that if we could, everyone might not still agree with us, but at least could see our rationale.

So we have to stop the forums from getting ruined by this sort of stuff, and the only option I can see is to not allow it at all. I apologize if these seems like censorship, it's not meant to be. It's just an attempt to keep these forums a useful place for all to exchange information. We've been getting a lot of complaints about the direction of the forums lately, and we're planning on fixing it.

*Edit*

At the suggestion of 2$bill, a special forum has been created called Support Rulings and the rule changed to allow discussing support rulings there only.

[Jesus_Saves]

+10.

[Zafoquat]

+10

this would be the best way for your system to work

it REQUIRES trust.

that is something BFG should work EXTREMELY HARD on

[Ptonjalken]

Sounds good Matt. Its the best thing to keep flamewars down to a minimum, since any discussion on these matters usually result in this. (intentionally or not).

+1 *raises hammer*

[2$Bill]

I don't want to sound like an ass but how are we going to find out if we are doing something wrong if we are interpreting the rule one way and are not allowed to discuss past BFG rulings on similar interpretations which may or may not have led to suspension.  Would it not be easier for you just to isolate this into it's own board, or sub forum?  As heated as the whole thing got this week, I have learned from it and have changed my play style to accomidate.  It also allows for certain checks and Balences on the programers as without this ability, many will cry foul as there will be no precident on rulings available to the players.

[Romeo Victor]

-10

This goes against the entire reason to have a *COMMUNITY*.  I don't disagree with any of BFG's rulings, but it is not fair for someone to say, "Oh this is our decision, now you can't even *TALK* about it in the common place."

If you want us to use your boards, we need to be able to use them to complain about you.  It isn't fair that people complain about you -- but the solution isn't to create a police state.   This rule hinders openness and progress.  It will only stifle communication and create resentment.

Just take this one on the chin Matt.  People will always complain - you can't solve it unfortunately.

/edit lost my train of thought on one sentence.

[CLICK]

I don't want to sound like an ass but how are we going to find out if we are doing something wrong if we are interpreting the rule one way and are not allowed to discuss past BFG rulings on similar interpretations which may or may not have led to suspension.  Would it not be easier for you just to isolate this into it's own board, or sub forum?  As heated as the whole thing got this week, I have learned from it and have changed my play style to accomidate.  It also allows for certain checks and Balences on the programers as without this ability, many will cry foul as there will be no precident on rulings available to the players.

+1.  You can't appease everyone, and to make the topic taboo would only deter thinking outside the box.  That's Why I play this game.

[Matt]

I don't want to sound like an ass but how are we going to find out if we are doing something wrong if we are interpreting the rule one way and are not allowed to discuss past BFG rulings on similar interpretations which may or may not have led to suspension.  Would it not be easier for you just to isolate this into it's own board, or sub forum?  As heated as the whole thing got this week, I have learned from it and have changed my play style to accomidate.  It also allows for certain checks and Balences on the programers as without this ability, many will cry foul as there will be no precident on rulings available to the players.

That's not a bad idea. I'll create such a board and amend the rule.

In general if you have a rules question, you should ask the support team via a ticket, not the board. You'll get a fair bit of misinformation here.

[2$Bill]

Thanks!

[Sid82]

not bad...just a little correction on your rule though...when you edited it, you left out the of any kind part

[Badrash]

I am all for creating a separate sub-forum.  But just because it is a separate sub-forum, I would prefer it were not ignored entirely as:  "This is where people whine and complain, so I will not bother with it."  There are valid points in some of what we are complaining about.

Also, I think one thing that is very clear is that the definition of Spam is not clear, and can be used on pretty much every single person in the game if you so choose.  Is there any way we can get some clarity on that rule?

[Ptonjalken]

I am all for creating a separate sub-forum.  But just because it is a separate sub-forum, I would prefer it were not ignored entirely as:  "This is where people whine and complain, so I will not bother with it."  There are valid points in some of what we are complaining about.

On the contrary,


IMO:
If this sub-forum exists, BFG will be able to pinpoint where any complaints may be, rather than having to sift through all of the other posts in the general forum to find any. Less effort in searching may result in more responses. This does not mean every topic in there will have Matt giving his opinions, but it could definitely be easier for him to do so if time allows. (This is only my guess).

[Matt]

I am all for creating a separate sub-forum.  But just because it is a separate sub-forum, I would prefer it were not ignored entirely as:  "This is where people whine and complain, so I will not bother with it."  There are valid points in some of what we are complaining about.

Also, I think one thing that is very clear is that the definition of Spam is not clear, and can be used on pretty much every single person in the game if you so choose.  Is there any way we can get some clarity on that rule?

I can't see any reasonable way to define spamming. I could say "you may not send one message to more than 10 people" but then people could still just make slight variations and send each to a group of 10. This would still be spamming but skirt the rule.

Spamming is one of those things we just have to make a judgment call on.

[Whisky12345]

7. Do not discuss support rulings of any kind here.

+10

 Excellent idea... As you say, whatever you do, you're going to alienate 50% of those involved. Plus, 99.9% of the people who will be posting or reading to that sort of thread will not be in possession of all the facts.

As an aside, another set of messageboards I frequent has had a rule in force for over 12 years now that on-site discussion of moderation decisions is forbidden... And those messageboards are the BBC's - they're a wee bit bigger than these ones and have an awful lot more staff looking after them.
(As I'm writing that they have 1452 users and at least 10 members of staff logged on)

At the suggestion of 2$bill, a special forum has been created called Support Rulings and the rule changed to allow discussing support rulings there only.

-10

Completely defeats the object... I would hazard a guess that a lot of people using this messageboard do it by clicking on the 'view new posts' link as soon as they get here... Thus they get a page showing them threads from all over the board without differentiation... Unless there's a function to ignore a particular forum, having a 'Support Rulings' forum won't make a single bit of difference... You still get the same number of arguements with the same number of people who still aren't in possession of all the facts, and the same number of people see these arguments whenever they click on 'view new posts'...

Just make a ruling that all moderation decisions will be dealt with exclusively by e-mail and that bringing them up on this board is grounds for suspension.

[2$Bill]

7. Do not discuss support rulings of any kind here.

+10

 Excellent idea... As you say, whatever you do, you're going to alienate 50% of those involved. Plus, 99.9% of the people who will be posting or reading to that sort of thread will not be in possession of all the facts.

As an aside, another set of messageboards I frequent has had a rule in force for over 12 years now that on-site discussion of moderation decisions is forbidden... And those messageboards are the BBC's - they're a wee bit bigger than these ones and have an awful lot more staff looking after them.
(As I'm writing that they have 1452 users and at least 10 members of staff logged on)

At the suggestion of 2$bill, a special forum has been created called Support Rulings and the rule changed to allow discussing support rulings there only.

-10

Completely defeats the object... I would hazard a guess that a lot of people using this messageboard do it by clicking on the 'view new posts' link as soon as they get here... Thus they get a page showing them threads from all over the board without differentiation... Unless there's a function to ignore a particular forum, having a 'Support Rulings' forum won't make a single bit of difference... You still get the same number of arguements with the same number of people who still aren't in possession of all the facts, and the same number of people see these arguments whenever they click on 'view new posts'...

Just make a ruling that all moderation decisions will be dealt with exclusively by e-mail and that bringing them up on this board is grounds for suspension.

I think you need to validate your arguement by addressing my post.

I don't want to sound like an ass but how are we going to find out if we are doing something wrong if we are interpreting the rule one way and are not allowed to discuss past BFG rulings on similar interpretations which may or may not have led to suspension.  Would it not be easier for you just to isolate this into it's own board, or sub forum?  As heated as the whole thing got this week, I have learned from it and have changed my play style to accomidate.  It also allows for certain checks and Balences on the programers as without this ability, many will cry foul as there will be no precident on rulings available to the players.

To not address an issue is to promote ignorance over education.  Ignorance serves only one purpose and that is to oppress those who sucumb to it.  To educate oneself is to free himself from the shackles of those who would prey on the weak and the poor, and overcome the adversities that are presented by those that would pervert the system to support selfish endevors.