Opening feedback from the head admin log

[d3north]

We also want to be clear that people should not be afraid to approach any head admin in regards to any rule or decision. All of us are more than happy to discuss things with you in private. However, if after talking to us and explaining your position our decision does not change, you would need to take a step back and accept this in order to continue to be a part of our community. Honest, respectful debate is welcome; escalating attacks against staff and inciting public disruption is unacceptable and will result in a temporary removal from the community.

 

This paragraph gets me, specifically the last two sentences.

Head Admins have been talked to before, and major consequences have followed, for things such as expressing opinions and sharing information. Talking to Heads normally expects a response of some kind, a recognition, consideration of opinion, et cetera. But for there to now exist a statement like this saying that if you don't like the Heads stance, then step off or get banned, it worries me. Legal handwashing exists, and this is a prime example.

 

The last sentence, taken in recent context, creates some unpleasant scenarios in my mind. This appears to be a shield from responsibility, and the line between spirited debate and hostile attack is thin, and different lenses make different pictures. Using examples from the recent event, I am being blamed for twilexis' leaving, and that I incited a small riot on various nerd platforms. I am accused of ridiculing an Admin, and that I disseminated edited photos using their likeness, digital and real. Under these new rules and regulations, I would have been instantly banned by multiple staff, as the evidence and accounts that were presented as above are now grounds for removal. Introducing new rules require an adjustment of methods. In mine and several others eyes, these new rules create a way for "undesirable" players to be removed without resistance.

 

Understanding that staff hold grudges and have skewed perspectives on some players, this makes me fear for the group I associate with. Several of us are despised by some staff in high power, and the fact some of us are unrightly banned often, even temporarily, makes us unsure in the staff competence to perform duties without major bias. Being labeled as a hooligan, a drama-queen, and as someone who disrespects staff, seeing the dark side of nerd does not give me hope, and now I see it coming out to everyday methods and conversations. Being warned that I am a post away from a permaban is disconcerting, but I figure that documentation is best at this point, and that if I go down then I may shed light on those who rule.

 

Don't take this as a personal attack, it isn't. This is simply an opinion on changes, and a small example of what lays further down this path.

[bmx20042004]

This paragraph gets me, specifically the last two sentences.

Head Admins have been talked to before, and major consequences have followed, for things such as expressing opinions and sharing information. Talking to Heads normally expects a response of some kind, a recognition, consideration of opinion, et cetera. But for there to now exist a statement like this saying that if you don't like the Heads stance, then step off or get banned, it worries me. Legal handwashing exists, and this is a prime example.

 

The last sentence, taken in recent context, creates some unpleasant scenarios in my mind. This appears to be a shield from responsibility, and the line between spirited debate and hostile attack is thin, and different lenses make different pictures. Using examples from the recent event, I am being blamed for twilexis' leaving, and that I incited a small riot on various nerd platforms. I am accused of ridiculing an Admin, and that I disseminated edited photos using their likeness, digital and real. Under these new rules and regulations, I would have been instantly banned by multiple staff, as the evidence and accounts that were presented as above are now grounds for removal. Introducing new rules require an adjustment of methods. In mine and several others eyes, these new rules create a way for "undesirable" players to be removed without resistance.

 

Understanding that staff hold grudges and have skewed perspectives on some players, this makes me fear for the group I associate with. Several of us are despised by some staff in high power, and the fact some of us are unrightly banned often, even temporarily, makes us unsure in the staff competence to perform duties without major bias. Being labeled as a hooligan, a drama-queen, and as someone who disrespects staff, seeing the dark side of nerd does not give me hope, and now I see it coming out to everyday methods and conversations. Being warned that I am a post away from a permaban is disconcerting, but I figure that documentation is best at this point, and that if I go down then I may shed light on those who rule.

 

Don't take this as a personal attack, it isn't. This is simply an opinion on changes, and a small example of what lays further down this path.

 

 

I ABSOLUTELY agree with this. D3north you're my hero. The logic alone here is concerning, the fact that i reported an issue and wanted things fixed for attacks I took yet this post seems like an attack on our "toxic" friends. Just because we put our point across in a fun and interesting way we get shot down and told were going to be banned. I love this place so much more now! So how longs my ban for and how longs every person you guys don't like ban for?

Edited December 6, 2014 by bmx20042004

[EeHee2000]

I suppose I'll agree with d3north and BMX that there are very easily manipulated new terms. 
The problem with the whole "escalating attacks" part is that different people obviously interpret things differently, - it means that if a single Head Admin deems something to be offensive, the offender instantly deserves a ban - which is far too exploitable. 
It comes down entirely to the personal opinion of a single person, which is really not the cleanest way of doing things. 
That being said I believe a reconsideration or rewording of the policy/rule in question is in order, because whilst I don't assume it will be abused, the potential is definitely there for the using. 

Edited December 6, 2014 by EeHee2000

[Trooprm32]

I suppose I'll agree with d3north and BMX that there are very easily manipulated new terms. 

The problem with the whole "escalating attacks" part is that different people obviously interpret things differently, - it means that if a single Head Admin deems something to be offensive, the offender instantly deserves a ban - which is far too exploitable. 

It comes down entirely to the personal opinion of a single person, which is really not the cleanest way of doing things. 

That being said I believe a reconsideration or rewording of the policy/rule in question is in order, because whilst I don't assume it will be abused, the potential is definitely there for the using. 

 

This is how most bans are dealt with; mod or admin discretion. I'm not going to confide in someone else whenever I want to make a ban, so why should this be any different? If anything, these types of bans are put into greater consideration than other bans already.

[Mumberthrax]

I think viewing this statement from head admins with anxiety or fear is the wrong way to look at it. There's a problem that has been growing, and this is a statement that it's recognized and will be handled per our rules. I don't see this as some sort of legal patriot act clause to become totalitarian monsters. It's just an attempt to put an end to behaviors that harm others, behaviors that create unneeded conflict that is anathema to a thriving community.

 

d3north, bmx, eehee, If you were head admins and you were responsible for keeping the peace while still allowing people to express their opinions or to have fun without harming others, how would you go about it? What can we do in your opinions to improve the situation we have?

[BCB228]

Suggestion: Why not make all swearing / name calling against the rules so the servers can be rated PG. Nerd.nu hates criticism and any type of name calling already, hell downvotes on the forums have been removed because players would get downvoted and cry.

[tobylane]

Suggestion: Why not make all swearing / name calling against the rules so the servers can be rated PG. Nerd.nu hates criticism and any type of name calling already, hell downvotes on the forums have been removed because players would get downvoted and cry.

 

The current rules are a very common trade-off between freedom of choice of words, and keeping everyone happy. Do you have some other trade-off in mind, or just the absolute ends of the scale?

[Magnyus]

Suggestion: Why not make all swearing / name calling against the rules so the servers can be rated PG. Nerd.nu hates criticism and any type of name calling already, hell downvotes on the forums have been removed because players would get downvoted and cry.

 

It seems that going PG is the direction that Nerd is headed towards, and while it's a shame that people take things as petty as swearing seriously. It would improve thing to an extent, though I don't feel that it would be a permanent solution.

 

If we did change policy to prevent swearing, then I feel that we would need to drop the affiliation with Reddit, which to be honest, we barely even have.

[Trooprm32]

Suggestion: Why not make all swearing / name calling against the rules so the servers can be rated PG. Nerd.nu hates criticism and any type of name calling already, hell downvotes on the forums have been removed because players would get downvoted and cry.

 

I do not agree with outlawing swearing in its entirety. I am against people using hateful words directed at others in a serious manner.

[Guest]

Suggestion: Why not make all swearing / name calling against the rules so the servers can be rated PG. Nerd.nu hates criticism and any type of name calling already, hell downvotes on the forums have been removed because players would get downvoted and cry.

 

I fully support the removal of all swearing and name calling. It would remove the drama regarding people being upset at other people for the reasons stated.

[MonroeZabaleta]

Suggestion: Why not make all swearing / name calling against the rules so the servers can be rated PG. Nerd.nu hates criticism and any type of name calling already, hell downvotes on the forums have been removed because players would get downvoted and cry.

Yes

[kittypuppet]

I do not agree with outlawing swearing in its entirety. I am against people using hateful words directed at others in a serious manner.

 

I second this. It's one thing to swear, it's another thing to direct it at people with negative intentions.

[BCB228]

I do not agree with outlawing swearing in its entirety. I am against people using hateful words directed at others in a serious manner.

But you might hurt somebodies feelings for swearing! don't you know?, FEELS =  BANS

[Mrloud15]

Head Admins have been talked to before, and major consequences have followed, for things such as expressing opinions and sharing information.

Examples?

 

Talking to Heads normally expects a response of some kind, a recognition, consideration of opinion, et cetera. But for there to now exist a statement like this saying that if you don't like the Heads stance, then step off or get banned, it worries me. Legal handwashing exists, and this is a prime example.

Not even close to what the statement is saying. It does not say that you will be banned for not agreeing with the heads on an issue, and you might want to reread it if that's what you believe it's saying.

 

The last sentence, taken in recent context, creates some unpleasant scenarios in my mind. This appears to be a shield from responsibility, and the line between spirited debate and hostile attack is thin, and different lenses make different pictures. Using examples from the recent event, I am being blamed for twilexis' leaving, and that I incited a small riot on various nerd platforms. I am accused of ridiculing an Admin, and that I disseminated edited photos using their likeness, digital and real. Under these new rules and regulations, I would have been instantly banned by multiple staff, as the evidence and accounts that were presented as above are now grounds for removal. Introducing new rules require an adjustment of methods. In mine and several others eyes, these new rules create a way for "undesirable" players to be removed without resistance.

First, you would not have been banned for your actions in the recent thread. Second, it's entirely possible to have a "spirited debate" and not even come close to attacking others involved in the debate. Finally, you might want to read the statement again if you under the impression that new rules were added, "our rules are not changing here."

 

Understanding that staff hold grudges and have skewed perspectives on some players, this makes me fear for the group I associate with. Several of us are despised by some staff in high power, and the fact some of us are unrightly banned often, even temporarily, makes us unsure in the staff competence to perform duties without major bias.

If you have examples of this as well I would like to see them because if someone is banning players are being banned for nothing that's something we need to take care of.

 

Being labeled as a hooligan, a drama-queen, and as someone who disrespects staff, seeing the dark side of nerd does not give me hope, and now I see it coming out to everyday methods and conversations. Being warned that I am a post away from a permaban is disconcerting, but I figure that documentation is best at this point, and that if I go down then I may shed light on those who rule.

When did this happen, and who warned you?

 

 

[Mumberthrax]

Suggestion: Why not make all swearing / name calling against the rules so the servers can be rated PG. Nerd.nu hates criticism and any type of name calling already, hell downvotes on the forums have been removed because players would get downvoted and cry.

 

This is just silly. "OMG you gave me a speeding ticket! Why don't you just outlaw cars and then we won't have this problem if you hate people speeding!?!?"

[EeHee2000]

I'm pretty sure BCB is being sarcastic. 
Outlawing swearing would drive a lot of people away and earn a lot of people bans, please don't be stupid enough to put that into motion. ;_;

[gdavison]

A quick disclaimer: I may say things that make people feel shitty.  Pls don't hate me bb, I do it cause I think we need it.

 

 

Just wanted to wade in here and say that (for what it's worth coming from me) that no one is being targeted, there's no vendettas here, and this isn't a power play to ban everyone in whatever group.  Everyone who "behaves" is wanted in this community. 

 

Bad guy hat on: if you display certain behaviours, though, you're going to get banned.  It's the behaviours that aren't wanted, not the people.  It's because these behaviours make it uncomfortable for a lot of other people here (staff and non-staff).  At that point the feelings of people who get banned don't matter.  (sorry)

 

If you were head admins and you were responsible for keeping the peace while still allowing people to express their opinions or to have fun without harming others, how would you go about it? What can we do in your opinions to improve the situation we have?

 

Everyone please try to think about this.  This is hard to do, and people who do it well IRL (police, lawmakers, judges) get paid the big bucks.

[Mrloud15]

I ABSOLUTELY agree with this. D3north you're my hero. The logic alone here is concerning, the fact that i reported an issue and wanted things fixed for attacks I took yet this post seems like an attack on our "toxic" friends. 

The logic is that if someone breaks a rule/rules the proper action will be taken. Whether that action is a warning or ban depends on the situation and the rule/rules that were broken. I don't get why you use the word "toxic" to describe your friends. We don't use this term or group people together like that, so I'm not sure why you do.

Just because we put our point across in a fun and interesting way we get shot down and told were going to be banned. I love this place so much more now! 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing your point in a fun and interesting way. The issues come from personal attacks and spamming threads which is what happened in the "Expanding the community" thread.

So how longs my ban for and how longs every person you guys don't like ban for?

Seeing how you are not banned for anything, I'm going to go with your not banned for anything, and if you follow the rules you will never be banned.

[d3north]

Examples?

Not me personally, but I will update this with proper examples from others.

 

Not even close to what the statement is saying. It does not say that you will be banned for not agreeing with the heads on an issue, and you might want to reread it if that's what you believe it's saying.

My thoughts may have not come across clearly, but I believe that it means if you continue expressing something to Staff that they do not like, then a ban is on its way. It may not be correct but that is what was understood.

 

First, you would not have been banned for your actions in the recent thread. Second, it's entirely possible to have a "spirited debate" and not even come close to attacking others involved in the debate. Finally, you might want to read the statement again if you under the impression that new rules were added, "our rules are not changing here."

All these fall into the discretionary portion of punishments, where one person sees something, someone may see another thing. One moderator may see a no-stops debate, and another sees a flame war between two people over an unimportant subject. New rules don't have to be added, only a different method of dealing with undesirables.

 

If you have examples of this as well I would like to see them because if someone is banning players are being banned for nothing that's something we need to take care of.

It isnt nothing, but it is overreaction and rather quick and judicious process too.

 

The details of the warning I share with you through Steam.

 

 

The logic is that if someone breaks a rule/rules the proper action will be taken. Whether that action is a warning or ban depends on the situation and the rule/rules that were broken. I don't get why you use the word "toxic" to describe your friends. We don't use this term or group people together like that, so I'm not sure why you do.

The term is, has been, and will be a sticking point of nerd. It isn't a rare term to be heard when talking to and about players.

Edited December 7, 2014 by d3north

[Mrloud15]

The term is, has been, and will be a sticking point of nerd. It isn't a rare term to be heard when talking to and about players.

Not really. It's only used by a small minority of players who mostly use it when they are talking about themselves for whatever reason. 

[SpiderMan]

Not really. It's only used by a small minority of players who mostly use it when they are talking about themselves for whatever reason. 

 

I've actually heard it used by people to label people they don't like.

 

It's not like it was the random word of the day.

[Mrloud15]

I've actually heard it used by people to label people they don't like.

 

It's not like it was the random word of the day.

Any recent examples? I ask because Tharine, draykhar, and myself worked on putting an end to people describing players as "toxic" over a year ago at this point, and we were successful for the most part. However, like I said above, there still seems to be small group of players who use it when talking about themselves. 

[SpiderMan]

As of this moment, there aren't that many references to the word "toxic" on the public sections of the forums, but if I were able to check the deleted comments, I'm sure I could find a few.

 

The point is, there will always be a keyword used to label people that aren't liked my that specific person. Words, like troll and toxic, that are used to group people in order to disregard their criticism or opinions or for other reasons.

Edited December 7, 2014 by gsand

[schererererer]

My thoughts may have not come across clearly, but I believe that it means if you continue expressing something to Staff that they do not like, then a ban is on its way. It may not be correct but that is what was understood.

In my original post, I specifically say that "Honest, respectful debate is welcome." What isn't welcome is standing on a soapbox and shouting that one is being oppressed and handing out pitchforks and torches. Advocating for something in a constructive manner, even if it's been decided against in the past, is perfectly fine. Spamming it, shouting how the staff/admins don't care about the community, throwing insults at people, starting a protest movement or engaging in civil disobedience - for lack of a better phrase, stirring up shit - is just childishly ridiculous.

 

All these fall into the discretionary portion of punishments, where one person sees something, someone may see another thing. One moderator may see a no-stops debate, and another sees a flame war between two people over an unimportant subject. New rules don't have to be added, only a different method of dealing with undesirables.

It seems to me that the border between actual debate and a flame war is pretty straightforward - if you're debating the merits and nuances of policy or a situation, you're golden; if you're attacking character, making public accusations, or hurling invectives at one another, you've stepped over the line.

 

I find it somewhat strange that a lot of people in here are focused on others "taking offense" to something or "hurting feelings" to the point of satirizing it with a modest proposal. It's a clear straw man - there's an obvious difference between merely swearing/'joking' with someone versus harassing them after they've asked you to stop, or causing a public disruption.

[TornadoHorse]

Any recent examples? I ask because Tharine, draykhar, and myself worked on putting an end to people describing players as "toxic" over a year ago at this point, and we were successful for the most part. However, like I said above, there still seems to be small group of players who use it when talking about themselves. 

 

A few of us joke around and call ourselves toxic because it's funny how we had been labelled that, none of us really go around promoting the idea that we are 'toxic', however. There are still terms that are used to group us together and often to invalidate our opinions, most recently we've been called "too passionate" about the servers, apparently that's a bad thing now.

 

In my original post, I specifically say that "Honest, respectful debate is welcome." What isn't welcome is standing on a soapbox and shouting that one is being oppressed and handing out pitchforks and torches. Advocating for something in a constructive manner, even if it's been decided against in the past, is perfectly fine. Spamming it, shouting how the staff/admins don't care about the community, throwing insults at people, starting a protest movement or engaging in civil disobedience - for lack of a better phrase, stirring up shit - is just childishly ridiculous.

 

I totally agree with the part about honest, respectful debate, however I have a problem with what you're saying as a whole. If a certain server isn't getting the service it needs, if certain staff members aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, what are we meant to do? Of course the answer would be take the issue to a head admin privately. What if nothing is still done? What if that server still doesn't receive the attention it needs? Because to me and many others, this is what seems to be happening right now. We've gone in full circles of taking care with our approaches, drawing up detailed lists of things that need to be done and we've also tried campaigning loudly to get people to recognise the problem. This issue is brought up far too often because it is never solved. What are we meant to do?