Moderating

[spooker]

I'd like to raise some issues with the recent moderating of the forums. It seems like a lot of threads have been getting closed without coherently stated reasons. When a person in a position of authority makes a decision that affects other people, it's customary to state a reason. In a recent thread closure, Souless stated "This thread no longer needs to be open, and every topic from here on out that has the name Kimp in it will be closed. Thanks!" This left me wondering what your criteria are for what threads "need to be open". Does this site really "need" to exist? We're here to basically talk about Quake, which is not a necessary thing, but rather something we do to amuse ourselves. The stated reason seems to be that the thread mentioned Kimp. Are we not allowed to talk about Kimp anymore? Is there now a master list of topics which we are allowed to speak about? Should we inquire with you before posting, to see if the topic meets your secret criteria for acceptable topics of discussion? As someone else said, Kimp is the most talked about player since Thresh, so if you close every thread that mentions him you're going to be shutting down quite a lot of discussion. If you look at the history of these forums, the reasons for censoring have usually been more narrow, like for example someone posted pornography or commercial spam or was engaging in protracted disrespectful arguments. Can we now be censored for mentioning various people? Has something changed? Whatever your standards are, please explain them better than this.

[metchsteekle]

spooker i think its somehow filed under "engaging in protracted disrespectful arguments" as kimp is mentioned a sort of one-way debate (?) happens and everyone keeps saying the same stuff over and over, i guess its so we can forget about kimp and move on to more important things like development and that ctf thing that seems to be sparking.

[Souless]

I think you are going way over board with this post. Kimp is a banned person from the forums. All the latest threads were not really related to quake and more towards how he (kimp) effects the community in a negative way. I did state why they were being closed. Because they are irrelevent. I don't see the problem. You bring up something that doesnt need to be brought up therefor reopening and irrelevant topic.

[spooker]

So they were closed because they are "irrelevent"? Irrelevant to what? I see the same deficiencies in your answer, in that your reasons are very superficial. It seems to be a "because I said so" type of thing. Again it's emerging that you seem to have a set agenda of topics for us to talk about. I assume that, since you have deemed this thread also irrelevant, it will also be closed? Traditionally, we've been free to talk about almost any topic, whether related to Quake or not. In this case, we were talking about the impact of a particular player on the community. This is very relevant to Quake. People needed to get some things off their chest, so they could move on. You're also dismissing my comments by resorting to the exact same type of reasoning you used when you closed the threads: irrelevant and unnecessary. You've used these concepts in a very empty way, because they beg the question: irrelevant to what? necessary for what? Nothing on this site is necessary for the sustenance of life. Is that the necessity you're referring to? In the past, this has been a forum for open discussion, and relevancy was not a requirement for posting. Are you changing this?

[Souless]

Ok SPooker.. I will open the threads back up so you can post whatever you deem necessary. So go ahead spooker.. Get whatever you want off your chest in the "relevsat" kimp threads.

[Baker]

I closed the one thread that was singularly designed to insult Kimp (by someone who really doesn't even know who Kimp is.):

http://quakeone.com/forums/quake-tal...mber-year.html

Because that thread specifically designed to insult and troll and is something that got decided back in early 2008 when Omicron and Paradise ended up trolling other forum members.

Maybe in a few days a list of the [very, very few] forum rules will get posted for clarity.

[Demiurge]

I think you are going way over board with this post. Kimp is a banned person from the forums. All the latest threads were not really related to quake and more towards how he (kimp) effects the community in a negative way. I did state why they were being closed. Because they are irrelevent. I don't see the problem. You bring up something that doesnt need to be brought up therefor reopening and irrelevant topic.

Please help me to understand. As Kimp continues to negatively affect the community as many people can easily see still, Kimp's presence and his behaviour seem immediately relevant to the community. As of this writing, he remains unbanned on several public servers despite his banned status on the forums. And as you say you recognise that people are discussing in these forums how Kimp continues to negatively affect the community, you also say that discussing Kimp is irrelevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you're saying that discussions about someone or something that impacts the Quake community is irrelevant. More importantly, it appears as if you're being dismissive, and I'm confident you don't want to be.

So, I would like to suggest that you more considerately take up what seems to be Spooker's main point with respect to taking the time to generously articulate what the specific policy is for shutting down threads, and what obligation a moderator does have under that policy to clearly explain the grounds for shutting down that thread. And it might also be useful if you can explain how important the obligation will be in the future for a moderator to fully, sincerely, and considerately respond to a member when a member questions the moderator about an action or statement.

[Souless]

Yes... You should baker.. because if you don't it will just be classified as "your secret criteria for acceptable topics of discussion".

[Souless]

Please help me to understand. As Kimp continues to negatively affect the community as many people can easily see still, Kimp's presence and his behaviour seem immediately relevant to the community. As of this writing, he remains unbanned on several public servers despite his banned status on the forums. And as you say you recognise that people are discussing in these forums how Kimp continues to negatively affect the community, you also say that discussing Kimp is irrelevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you're saying that discussions about someone or something that impacts the Quake community is irrelevant. More importantly, it appears as if you're being dismissive, and I'm confident you don't want to be.

So, I would like to suggest that you more considerately take up what seems to be Spooker's main point with respect to taking the time to generously articulate what the specific policy is for shutting down threads, and what obligation a moderator does have under that policy to clearly explain the grounds for shutting down that thread. And it might also be useful if you can explain how important the obligation will be in the future for a moderator to fully, sincerely, and considerately respond to a member when a member questions the moderator about an action or statement.

I saw his point and reopened the threads, I am a sarcastic person therefore i replied in a sarcastic way.. If people want to comment on the now OPEN threads involving kimp the by all means do so.

[Baker]

Yes... You should baker.. because if you don't it will just be classified as "your secret criteria for acceptable topics of discussion".

It isn't "my" secret criteria, but yes an updated list of forum rules should be posted somewhere. Solecord and I know what they are. Yellow does, but he isn't around.

But it isn't fair to either forum members or moderators to not easily know what the forum rules are -- not that there are very many of them

[spooker]

My point was not really about the closure of specific threads. I don't really care about commenting about Kimp. It was more about the way it was done--sometimes reasons weren't stated, and, when reasons were stated, they seemed to mark a change from how things were done in the past, and to lead to unacceptable consequences if followed to their logical end. Obviously admins and moderators have the right to impose any standard they want on the forum discussion, to close any thread, and to ban any person. However, everyone coming here and talking is a cooperative activity, so I just felt that things weren't being explained well enough to keep everyone on the same page.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd never question Baker's closure of a thread. This is because over the years he's shown that he cares about the community, he thinks things through well, and he's responsible. So, if he did something I disagreed with, due to his reputation I'd still trust that it was probably the right thing to do. It's different for a new moderator. I hope I haven't sounded condescending.

[Souless]

Yes... very condescending....

[rev]

i'm kinda with spooker on the baker vs new mod thing. everyone knows baker's always got the best intentions, and anyone that's ever played with souless knows, that in quake at least, he's ruthless. but i have no doubt souless is level-headed and was made a moderator for a reason, someone important trusts him, and until we have a reason not to, we all should follow suit.

i don't really understand the need to start a thread on lack of explanation when it comes to closing a thread. i could see if threads were being deleted and you literally had no reason why. but the "not relevant, any mention of kimp = closed" explanation is really all that needs to be said. the kimp issue is boring now, nothing more can be said that hasn't already been said. every thread involving kimp is just previous threads repeated. solve the problem at the source. people still have contact with server admins, fill an inbox or two until the desired result is produced. it worked here, enough "ban kimp" threads were started here, he's banned here. now take it server side.

in the end, souless is a moderator, through donation or some other means, either way i'm sure he's earned it and is a valued member of our "community" and i'm confident he has the "community's" best interest in mind. there's better things to take issue with.

[Souless]

Ruthless? I beg to differ... :-P

[metchsteekle]

ruthless no more: