Our rules of conduct and how pointless they are

[Darkelmo]

Firstly I must disclose before I make my point here that I emotionally identify with this topic to a high degree and my response may exemplify or be evident of such.

 

No offence to anyone but I think our idea of server and related utility rules are an absolute joke. To expand on this I mean that there are a plethora of unrecorded and unofficial codes of conduct and chat protocols that some may label 'common sense' rules but in all honesty these rules are constantly subjected to change either due to the people enforcing them or the people who are present when someone says or does something that contests with the unestablished rules of conduct. I'm talking about stuff like complex behaviors being boiled down to single subjective words and phrases like 'harassment', 'toxicity', 'Don't be a dick', 'hate speech' and other such terms which in all honesty cannot with any confidence, be said to encompass a universal understanding of exactly what these phrases imply to people all over the world, the notion is just rubbish. I have had a lot of issues wrapping my head around the boundaries and topics I have to steer far away from when speaking in mumble or what words were allowed to be used by players and staff alike while on the server during my time with nerd.nu.

 

I'll just fire off a bunch of personal examples that date back a while a way.

 

Nerd.nu has with pride been held as a place with respect for people of all different minority's and beliefs and as such has created rules so to prevent offence to those groups in regards to words, references and even skin appearance to allow players to feel as welcome as possible and to feel safe. But exceptions were made left right and center when certain mods were on and for what seemed to be the entirety of the player base at points like the total allowance of the word 'tard' or 'retard' or 'autistic' in the most tasteless and offensive of instances to the point where the word was listed in the fucking server rules. I know there has now been change to the server's approach to derogatory words for the afflicted but this exemplifies how our phrases and rules do not encompass or represent our actual codes of conduct that players are expected to use. When I brought up the issue on the forums (some years ago) the admins were split on the issue.

 

I used to bring up people's ban appeals in mumble to talk about them only to find that they were a no no to talk about in order to respect those who were involved in the process. This was always phrased to me as to be inciting drama and I was promptly muted and kicked a couple of times for doing it. Now I hear all the time from moderators in mumble about their personal opinions in ban appeals to the point of them blatantly insulting people they take a disliking to, saying things like they wish certain players were permanently banned and this really stems from a culture of staff/player rivalry, something that would be held undisclosed had these moderators have acted professionally like they did previously.

 

I remember when certain topics like politics and religion were not to be spoken of only to find that now it's a case by case basis depending on which moderators are in mumble at the time.

 

I heard the other day that moderators aren't allowed to make channels where certain players were muted, also completely different in the past.

 

I remember when harassment of younger players or just players that people wouldn't like would occur all the time in public chat and mumble while literally nothing was done about it.

 

I endured a fuck tonne of horrible shit in the first 3 years of playing on nerd and using mumble (some would say was justified) but I'll go through the list 

 

I was constantly harassed when using my microphone, people would intentionally lie about my age to convince other players to treat me like shit with them. I had offensive nicknames used by players and mods alike, there were mumble channel names made to insult me, I had people who impersonated me to troll me. I had people who would intentionally describe graphic content for the sake of making me uncomfortable, I was linked to troll virus sites, I was once linked to what I was told was a mumble plugin but was actually a homosexual pornographic window that had been designed to be unclosable during which I was a minor and the funny thing was, when I retaliated or had a genuine emotional response to these things it landed me banned, or muted or kicked. 

 

I feel like we do have a set of rules that condemn being an asshole but aside from the black and white rules of 'no hax' and such, a separate culture of disregard and personal opinion/interpretation has split the server into the 'Hush hush no criticism or controversy allowed or you r toxic' faction and the hardcore 'shit happens, its the internet m8... HARASS! INFLAME! TROLL' faction. 

 

You'd think with a written set of rules that at least the staff would all have a similar way of expression and conduct that they adhere'd to but the inconsistency I see is absolutely hilarious. 

 

So my proposition is that the community re establishes what kind of people we are. Are we all 'adults here' and we should just allow freedom of expression in all forms on the server or should we just slap the fucking swear filter on our server like we're all back to playing runescape again?

 

 I think we should strive for something inbetween and agree on it because let's face it, the community and it's expectation of our behavior has changed dramatically and needs to be re established so that there is a reference point for 'is what i'm saying acceptable?'. hopefully we'll get a result where toxic players don't confuse themselves for 'forum vigilantes of justice trying to return to the good old days' and a scenario where the carebears don't convince themselves that the internet is for people with nice things to say only.

 

 

 

tl;dr

 

Someone draw a fucking line that says 'don't cross this line'. The old one is outdated and keeps moving 4 fucks sakes.

   

[SkrapssparkS]

I've read through your post and listening to some of the things you have said happened to you I'm quite shocked. Under no circumstance should a mod/admin abuse mumble creating a channel to deliberately upset an individual, it's blatant abuse of power and also bullying. All NSFW material like you mentioned has to be labelled as such you can't link people to porn without telling them what they are about to click on, it's rude and inappropriate especially if there are younger players online.

 

The idea around the nerd servers was originally to create a minecraft server that more adult players could join so they don't have to worry about swearing ect. However part of the fact that it's an adult server should mean we don't act like children on it. We shouldn't be hurling abuse at people, if you don't like someone, avoid them or bring the problems you have up with a mod/admin.

 

It's not easy to draw a clear line as a lot of bans due to inappropriate language are completely circumstantial. e.g. you could have someone saying fuck or cunt in chat over something stupid e.g. they placed an obsidian block down in the wrong spot and have to dig it out or they fell in lava, that's fine. If however someone is directly abusing a player calling them a cunt or whatever swear words they can think of at the time, that's not ok. We can swear yes. But we can't abuse it and use it to upset players, that's not what we are about. If however the other person was a friend of the one giving the abuse and it was clearly a piss take or joke. That's also fine, as no intent to upset the other player is there.

 

Again, sorry for the things that seem to have happened they should never happen to people in the community no matter what. I hope I've explained our rules a little bit more, however as I said it's difficult to set a line at what's acceptable and what isn't.

[Darkelmo]

I've read through your post and listening to some of the things you have said happened to you I'm quite shocked. Under no circumstance should a mod/admin abuse mumble creating a channel to deliberately upset an individual, it's blatant abuse of power and also bullying. All NSFW material like you mentioned has to be labelled as such you can't link people to porn without telling them what they are about to click on, it's rude and inappropriate especially if there are younger players online.

 

The idea around the nerd servers was originally to create a minecraft server that more adult players could join so they don't have to worry about swearing ect. However part of the fact that it's an adult server should mean we don't act like children on it. We shouldn't be hurling abuse at people, if you don't like someone, avoid them or bring the problems you have up with a mod/admin.

 

It's not easy to draw a clear line as a lot of bans due to inappropriate language are completely circumstantial. e.g. you

could have someone saying fuck or cunt in chat over something stupid e.g. they placed an obsidian block down in the wrong spot and have to dig it out or they fell in lava, that's fine. If however someone is directly abusing a player calling them a cunt or whatever swear words they can think of at the time, that's not ok. We can swear yes. But we can't abuse it and use it to upset players, that's not what we are about. If however the other person was a friend of the one giving the abuse and it was clearly a piss take or joke. That's also fine, as no intent to upset the other player is there.

 

Again, sorry for the things that seem to have happened they should never happen to people in the community no matter what. I hope I've explained our rules a little bit more, however as I said it's difficult to set a line at what's acceptable and what isn't.

I am very much aware of the conduct above being blatantly against the rules but my point (exemplified by the title) is that we still have a culture of disagreement when it it comes to how civilly we treat each other and it has turned some of our old fashioned players from before times into people who really do not care for the rules as they have had a history of being over/under enforced. It's not enough that we have our rules down, and we can't just say 'context is everything' we need to let the entire playerbase where we stand, what our values are and how much of the original nerd.nu community we identify with. I know it seems unnecessary or even corny but could we have an ethos? A headnote? an underpinning theme that dictates the way we do things instead of having it so the players don't leave every 5 godamn minutes because nerd.nu can't make up it's fucking mind. Can we make it so we don't have to keep removing comments? Can we make a situation where the staff team doesn't have to consider half the playerbase of survival as toxic drama llamas? Have we evolved into something that not everyone is satisfied with or are we having a hard time adhering to the old nerd.nu model? 

[SkrapssparkS]

You want everyone to be on the same page? It's tricky, everyone seems to have their own way of handling things, I used to go by three strikes of minor abuse before taking more serious action, some people give a lot more lenience towards matters and some are more harsh. I guess we could attempt to modify the mod training to include a few questions on what you'd do in certain scenarios. That could possibly be a way to make people treat situations more consistently. In terms of treating all s players as toxic, maybe they should spend a bit more time on s to realize that this is clearly not the case. Again, these are implementations the staff would have to discuss among themselves to improve their moderating system. The servers seem to be almost completely different communities, I'd like that to change, there is no way we can improve the community as a whole if we only know one third of it. However that's a lot easier said than done. I see your problem, I think the only way we are going to combat it is to have a brainstorm with all members of the community as to ideas that could make the community function as one.      

[Cyotie911]

I will agree that, even though I have never saw instances of staff talking openly in mumble about bans or harassing people with mumble channel names and such, that I would agree that this behavior is absolutely not behavior that I want coming from staff members and urge you to bring this to the attention of an administrator if it happens in the future.

As far as the part about consistency in how rule infractions are handled, this is the way it is all over the world with how public athority figures handle rule breakers. Everyone has a "use your best judgement" policy when it comes down to how certain rules are broken. For example... A cop sees you speeding. You are doing 7 miles an hour over the speed limit on the highway. He doesn't pull you over. 2 miles later, going the same 7 miles over the speed limit, you pass by another cop who does pull you over and gives you a verbal warning. You take back off again and pass by another cop while speeding who doesn't pull you over followed by a forth cop who actually gives you a ticket. These cops are totally independent of each others actions but you just got lucky and didn't hit the cop that was writing tickets until the forth cop. You could have, just as well, hit the ticket writing cop on the first stop. The ticket would have been justified at every stop since you were speeding, but it's up to the cop to if they want to write a ticket or not.

Same thing with judges, if you show up to Court for an offence, the judge can set a wide variety of punishments, most offenses come with a minimum sentence (that is normally used in most cases) but there is also a maximum that could be inforced. This still is left up to the judges discression.

Even in someone's job athority figures use different ways of thinking... you could have 3 different shift manager that might look at the same offense differently. One could fire you, one could give you a written warning, one could just verbally warn you.

Now there are some more serious offenses that will earn you a ban as soon as they happen, like xraying. There's not going to be a warning in this case and it pretty much carries a 1 month ban (the exception is if this isn't your first xray ban)

Other than those types of things, we value our staff's option to do what they feel is right when regarding people who break the rules. They think about whether it was an accident, what is deliberate but minor, was it done out of anger or retaliation, or if it was major and just done with rule breaking as the sole intention.

This is what makes us unique and I support this was of rule inforcement.

P.S. I wrote this on my phone so please excuse if something autocorrected poorly.

[EeHee2000]

I will agree that, even though I have never saw instances of staff talking openly in mumble about bans or harassing people with mumble channel names and such, that I would agree that this behavior is absolutely not behavior that I want coming from staff members and urge you to bring this to the attention of an administrator if it happens in the future.

As far as the part about consistency in how rule infractions are handled, this is the way it is all over the world with how public athority figures handle rule breakers. Everyone has a "use your best judgement" policy when it comes down to how certain rules are broken. For example... A cop sees you speeding. You are doing 7 miles an hour over the speed limit on the highway. He doesn't pull you over. 2 miles later, going the same 7 miles over the speed limit, you pass by another cop who does pull you over and gives you a verbal warning. You take back off again and pass by another cop while speeding who doesn't pull you over followed by a forth cop who actually gives you a ticket. These cops are totally independent of each others actions but you just got lucky and didn't hit the cop that was writing tickets until the forth cop. You could have, just as well, hit the ticket writing cop on the first stop. The ticket would have been justified at every stop since you were speeding, but it's up to the cop to if they want to write a ticket or not.

Same thing with judges, if you show up to Court for an offence, the judge can set a wide variety of punishments, most offenses come with a minimum sentence (that is normally used in most cases) but there is also a maximum that could be inforced. This still is left up to the judges discression.

Even in someone's job athority figures use different ways of thinking... you could have 3 different shift manager that might look at the same offense differently. One could fire you, one could give you a written warning, one could just verbally warn you.

Now there are some more serious offenses that will earn you a ban as soon as they happen, like xraying. There's not going to be a warning in this case and it pretty much carries a 1 month ban (the exception is if this isn't your first xray ban)

Other than those types of things, we value our staff's option to do what they feel is right when regarding people who break the rules. They think about whether it was an accident, what is deliberate but minor, was it done out of anger or retaliation, or if it was major and just done with rule breaking as the sole intention.

This is what makes us unique and I support this was of rule inforcement.

P.S. I wrote this on my phone so please excuse if something autocorrected poorly.

I agree with what you're saying, but that doesn't mean that the rules shouldn't be more concise. There's plenty of room for improvement; I understand that some issues just can't have a clear outline of 'how2handle', but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't define rules past that point. 

To simplify, the rules system needs a lot of spit and polish overall. 

[roastnewt]

When I was a mod, there was a "suggested punishment" document.  I.E., if player does x, warn on first offense, then ban for y amount of time, if they continue to break the same rule, extend to z amount of time, etc.  Is this still the case?  Making sure everyone follows that document could reduce some of the variability that the OP has a problem with.

[Pyr0mrcow]

I'm glad that this was brought up...while it seems like the staff's vastly improved since the time of what was described in the initial post, the other parts are still pretty valid. There's been discussion about the rules recently, and shortening them, which I'm all for, but we do need some way of covering 'common sense'...

 

So, what about 2 rulesets?
One covers the basics, short enough that new players might actually read it.
The second covers the same subjects, but in much greater detail. What cases does 'griefing' cover? 'Harassment'? What words are banned? What words are banned only in negative context? What subjects are completely off limits? When discussing something contraversial, how far is too far? What are the rules on name changes?

While those all may seem like obvious things to the people here, an occasional trip to the ban section of the forum begs to differ.
Like I said, I wouldn't expect most new players to bother reading the larger set of rules, but it'd at least give us a point of reference for warnings and enforcement.

 

Since political/religious/similar discussions were brought up...personally, I think it's fine, so long as people don't actually get argumentative about it, because that usually leads to verbal hell. So long as people don't try to shove their opinions down people's throats, and I haven't seen that happen in a while, there's nothing wrong with that subject. Just keep in mind that there is a difference between civil discussion and an argument.

 

Related to a previous comment about S but I don't want to derail the topic:

On relations with S, I'll say that people who look like icons of the S community often find themselves in sticky situations, for any multitude of reasons. That'd be the main reason for the relationship between staff and the S community looking bad, in my opinion. I've had a couple bad experiences on S, but nothing like those chat wars. That said...
I'm kind of against the idea of trying to make one unified community. I think that S and P are better off being mostly seperated as far as community goes, because too much intermingling will lead to too similar of playstyles; which inevitably leads to one server completely overtaking the population of the other. I was pretty surprised when I looked at S a while back and saw that griefing wasn't allowed...which turns the server into P, but with the whole map being an arena. In that case, for most players, P would be prefered, because it's basically the same server with the ability to choose where to have arenas and where not to.
Share a server and a subreddit, sure, but the servers have to be independently unique to justify both existing. I'm glad that S seems to have gotten an involved staff team for the new rev, that's at least a step in the right direction. I think it'd be good for them if eventually a survival-focused person became a Head.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Pyr0mrcow

[tobylane]

So, what about 2 rulesets?

One covers the basics, short enough that new players might actually read it.

The second covers the same subjects, but in much greater detail. What cases does 'griefing' cover? 'Harassment'? What words are banned? What words are banned only in negative context? What subjects are completely off limits? When discussing something contraversial, how far is too far? What are the rules on name changes?

While those all may seem like obvious things to the people here, an occasional trip to the ban section of the forum begs to differ.

 

The problem comes up when players, usually long term, get banned for something that they know is in the second book, is in the current rules, but as it's not in the short-form they don't follow it. Or those same people over-defend newbies who just go by the first book.

 

How about a server message to a new player of each revision that says something like "You are bound by both books, it will be assumed you read both" - 30 seconds after they join and when they drop/chest those books?

[ROCKONN]

When I was a mod, there was a "suggested punishment" document.  I.E., if player does x, warn on first offense, then ban for y amount of time, if they continue to break the same rule, extend to z amount of time, etc.  Is this still the case?  Making sure everyone follows that document could reduce some of the variability that the OP has a problem with.

Yeah, it still exists. Few copies of it've been floating around in recent months. Lot of interesting stuff in there, like the origin of the "Toxic" mindset.

Edited March 1, 2015 by ROCKONN

[Narissis]

My blatantly honest opinion of the matter is this:

 

The more detailed and concise the rules become, the more inclined people are going to be to try to "rules lawyer" their way around them.

 

I like the idea of having a "code of conduct overview" for new players to read that's short and to the point, with a more in-depth explanation available for clarification (I'm not a big fan of the term 'rules'; it feels juvenile to me).

 

But at the same time, unless your rules are dozens of pages long and written in dense legalese, you will never manage to account for every single violation in every single context at every single level of severity. At some point, you have to draw the line and leave the fine details up to staff judgement.

 

I do think that communication should be encouraged between staff members regarding punishments, in order to maintain a professional degree of consistency.

 

But it's ludicrous to expect the regulations for something as casual as an online gaming community to be as comprehensive as a corporate HR policy or legal document.

[UNP]

My biggest problem is the selective enforcement of the rules depending on who's the "aggressor" and who's the "target". I don't see the remotest point in having ANY kind of rulebook if it's going to be thrown out the window on the basis of a personal opinion. The mods jobs aren't to like people, or to dislike them - but they seem to let that steer their decisions more often than not.

[tobylane]

My biggest problem is the selective enforcement of the rules depending on who's the "aggressor" and who's the "target". I don't see the remotest point in having ANY kind of rulebook if it's going to be thrown out the window on the basis of a personal opinion. The mods jobs aren't to like people, or to dislike them - but they seem to let that steer their decisions more often than not.

 

Could you describe how you'd separate selective enforcement, lack of any perfect objective viewpoint, prior history, moderator discretion and ban commutes?

[Narissis]

I'd like to hear more about this alleged "selective enforcement of rules" based on who moderators "like", because I think it's a fabricated problem. I've seen some of the most well-known members of the community get handed bans for committing bannable offenses, and I've seen some complete unknowns receive their proper due diligence for minor infractions.

 

The only cases I've seen where the mods have been harsher than normal have been people with a long-standing hostile attitude toward the staff. It's almost as though there are consequences for testing the limits and deliberately antagonizing the disciplinary body of the community! Imagine that!

[Darkelmo]

I'd like to hear more about this alleged "selective enforcement of rules" based on who moderators "like", because I think it's a fabricated problem. I've seen some of the most well-known members of the community get handed bans for committing bannable offenses, and I've seen some complete unknowns receive their proper due diligence for minor infractions.

 

The only cases I've seen where the mods have been harsher than normal have been people with a long-standing hostile attitude toward the staff. It's almost as though there are consequences for testing the limits and deliberately antagonizing the disciplinary body of the community! Imagine that!

For one, you need to have been around for long enough to notice moderators 'being harsher than normal'.

 

I don't have saved logs of the incidents as they were verbal and I'm not allowed to record people in mumble without the entire channel's permission (coz no one wants to be held accountable for they say over the internet surprise surprise) and stating them to the best of my memory wouldn't be any more credible than a counter claim. Besides even if I did directly quote what a staff member said over mumble their name would appear like this : [Redacted] and it really serves no point because practically every fucking staff member is guilty of it, and probably every regular player in the same position would do the same fucking thing to some degree. I don't wish to eradicate all inconsistencies in moderating, I just want to give a good whack at shrinking the differences that have formed due to changing times. 

 

And no, it isn't a fabricated problem. Though there was a time when it wasn't such an issue until a person who's name will be redacted if I post it, shed light on shady practices that occurred a few admin team generations ago becoming an icon for questioning staff practices. And it's actually funny to see new players come in and look at all these 'toxic' people and start judging them like they know what it's all about. Some of their concerns and a lot of their anger comes from a problem that stems back to a time where nerd.nu really didn't have any factionalism like it does today. The people who are 'pushing buttons' are doing so coz their fucking sick of a bunch of stuff that I dare not mention in this topic for worry of dramallamaism (yes I created a new word). Kiddos, take a look at the archives and get to know your nerd.nu history before you start having a go at all the 'toxic' people flying around.

 

To be honest, a large contributer to the allowance of shitty moderating and everything is nerd.nu's weird obsession with censorship (that used to be there for logical reasons with the trust that everything that was happening behind closed doors was legit and helpful) But now it just serves as a way for admins and moderators getting shifted around staff positions where nobody wanted them or thought they could do well to everyone's confusion. I bet if the staff team had the idea that people were watching them when they did their shit they'd be less sloppy and would handle stuff with professional care. Though they like the wall of anonymity and discretion because it gives them room to make mistakes without the playerbase jumping on them in the middle of all their affairs. The system of chain of command and stuff for nerd.nu wasn't really developed for the purpose of being a timeless, foolproof system that would create a self sustaining community so the way things are handled now has kind of become a garbled mess. Like, no one seemed to plan for the problem where certain admins act like shitlords and get into arguments with other admins. And now everyone pretends it didn't happen or they pretend like everything worked out now and everything is back to normal.

 

If the staff just started to agree on the simple shit again then maybe we can get them organized enough to fix all the other shit.

 

But that also means laying off the toxic shitbaggery that everyone else is throwing at them for allowing it to get to this state. If you act like turds even when the staff team starts taking steps in the right direction, they'll never fucking listen to you. I mean they did stuff like throwing polls and votes and documented logs of actions and stuff when that discrepancy issue was thrown around a while ago. Everyone jumped at even the hardest working honest, blameless admins to the point where they either stopped trying or said 'fuck it, I'm out'. The staff do want to work to the needs of the playerbase but you have to give them something to work with instead of a 'fuck you, it's all fucked, fix it!... I don't know what I want you to make the server like but its not this!' 

 

Oh and if you don't get what I mean by fixing all the 'other shit', don't worry about it, just take baby steps to fixing this one. I'll get to it later...

 

eh, I kind got sidetracked from the whole original post, but

 

les just tri 2 b frens k?

Edited March 2, 2015 by Darkelmo

[Pyr0mrcow]

Saying that every current staff member is guilty of the cases you've described doesn't exactly help your case, just saying. I doubt that the brand new mods have anything to do with your problems. It's fine to have disagreements, and point out crappy situations when they happen, but not all staff are the same person, and one bad decision, hasty ban, ect doesn't invalidate them.

 

Anyway, rules of conduct, secondary ruleset, people not listening to it. I realize that people are likely to overlook a longer ruleset, which is why I suggested 2 seperate ones (there are probably a lot of people who don't even look at the current ruleset). At the very least, it would give everyone a point of reference for situations that the staff have had to deal with in the past and decided specifically whether or not to act on. It'd be a way of clearing up whether a specific case that's been handled in the past is against the rules or not, if someone's confused.

As with the current rules, it'd ultimately be up to the staff to decide how lenient or strict to be with the specified set, but it'd still give people an idea of what is and what isn't ok. One example that comes to mind is the whole thing surrounding 'homophobia', which may mean different things to different people, but on the enforcement side, so far, has meant even mentioning certain words. Specifying a case like that would make handling banning and unbanning more straightforward, rather than a battle of intentions.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Pyr0mrcow

[Darkelmo]

Saying that every current staff member is guilty of the cases you've described doesn't exactly help your case, just saying. I doubt that the brand new mods have anything to do with your problems. It's fine to have disagreements, and point out crappy situations when they happen, but not all staff are the same person, and one bad decision, hasty ban, ect doesn't invalidate them.

 

 

 

When I said every staff member is guilty, I mean of allowing personal thought to weigh in on their decision, I don't believe anyone makes their banning decisions wholly objective, maybe the mods who have only bothered to ban 2 people in their entire career. As for trying to invalidate them, im not against making mistakes and im not saying we should have a faultless staff team. idk where you got that idea from, especially when im saying that other people would do the same things in their position. There could just be some improvement in this area, some tidying up if you will...

[Pyr0mrcow]

You said that every staff member was guilty, in response to the quote about them handing out punishment based on who they like and don't like. Personally, I've mostly seen neutrality, particularly from the newest members. There are times that a member of the staff team will do something pretty disagreeable, one example would be being harsher on players that they don't have good relations with, but that doesn't mean that their entire course of actions having to do with the server follows that route. They're human, some are even prone to innapropriate emotionally driven outbursts, but they still try.

Should bring up when there's a problem. Should definitely point it out. But combatative wording gets us nowhere. Ending a post with 'les b frens' doesn't have much of an effect when the people in question just got slapped around in the beginning of it.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Pyr0mrcow

[Darkelmo]

You said that every staff member was guilty, in response to the quote about them handing out punishment based on who they like and don't like. Personally, I've mostly seen neutrality, particularly from the newest members. There are times that a member of the staff team will do something pretty disagreeable, one example would be being harsher on players that they don't have good relations with, but that doesn't mean that their entire course of actions having to do with the server follows that route. They're human, some are even prone to innapropriate emotionally driven outbursts, but they still try.

Should bring up when there's a problem. Should definitely point it out. But combatative wording gets us nowhere. Ending a post with 'les b frens' doesn't have much of an effect when the people in question just got slapped around in the beginning of it.

 

 

And there it is, the classic topic derail

 

the issue with the way I have presented my topic rather than a contribution to the topic itself. 

 

Well we may as well lock it now, anyone with half a brain knows this is the time to stop reading. 

 

Hope someone will think about this, as for now the topic has lost it's purpose and credibility,

 

Admin feel free to close...

[tobylane]

Someone draw a fucking line that says 'don't cross this line'. The old one is outdated and keeps moving 4 fucks sakes.

 

People love to cross the line, then say the line is blurry and are they really over it? Is there anything in this area you have a problem with that you, or a neutral bystander wouldn't see as a reaction to something a player did?

 

If you want the topic closed just because someone stress tested your argument then was it really strong enough to post in the first place? Have a pm with a head admin on IRC where you can name names, that way you can be specific and not unhelpfully broad.

[Darkelmo]

You're right, I don't know what the fuck im talking about, the 2000 words of thought and explanation I gave were not strong enough to post as outline by pyros incredibly detailed and thoughtful rebuttal of my stupid politically incorrect one sided discussion that I dared to use the word 'every' in even when surrounded by the words 'practically' and 'to some degree'. I have made no attempts to accommodate both sides of an issue and have gone out of my way to throw blame on individuals instead of calling this the result of circumstance.

 

I'm using the phrase 'derailed' so I can run away and hide from a topic I am clearly not passionate about at all. i just posted it because Im a stupid toxic S player who wants to ruin everyone's day.

 

 

I can't wait to go harass and troll the admin team who have no room for improvement cause that's all I'm good for. Damn you logical ppl! You've outsmarted me with wit and objective analysis of my discussion!

 

Clearly you all have very good listening skills, I'm full of bullshit and lies. There are no problems with nerd.nu, I made it up for attention.

[TornadoHorse]

Darkelmo I think you're getting a bit worked up about this. Honestly, I don't think anything that you wrote really carries any point to it, it sounds like you're just venting. If the issue is that the rules are bad then the heads have tried to work on that with the community interaction guidelines. You're not saying what you want to change or how to do it, and this issue is past it a bit which is why this thread is a bit confusing.

I think the rules are fine. None of them are too strict; however the community interaction policy feels a step too far for me, but if that's how the heads want to run the community we've got to listen to that. I think the problem is the way that the rules are enforced. As everyone knows (although some may forget), each staff member will and is allowed to handle a situation differently in the best way they see fit. There is a lot of inconsistency. When the same job is being done that's fine, but this inconsistency is showing very drastic contrasts in the way some staff members treat players. To be totally honest, I think we're lacking a reasonable, responsible head of community that will speak out when necessary; no Barlimore, no ludeman, no Skuld. These guys all had different ways of dealing with the community but all of them worked. Right now I don't feel we have that. We may have people people who are capable of it but they either aren't in the right positions or aren't fulfilling that role.

To be more objective about this, I think we need someone like that as head, or one of the current heads to take up that role as they already possess the right characteristics (I'm looking at you jchance, scherer). *If* there is a problem, then I think that's the way to solve it, however I don't think there's too much of a problem right now.

[Darkelmo]

I'm not venting, you haven't seen venting. I flowered up my language to make it carebear friendly, I stated my points and literally all I hear is 'I haven't seen any examples out of the ordinary... people interpret things different ways... I'd love to hear more about these instances you speak of...'

 

I've shown that there is a problem through examples above, I've explained why I can't name those people, I feel that this isn't the issue of those individuals necessarily and that we all could do with a good conduct and community value re evaluation.

 

In this post I have identified an issue,

 

Shown the issue isn't made up,

 

I've suggested a way to tackle the problem

 

and I've done so without screaming how stupid all of your fucking answers are.

 

 

All the 'toxic shitty S players' have been bringing this stuff up for two years and I posted it to you in a very gentle, explanatory way. I gave evidence the problem exists and I provided instructions as to how nerd.nu can take baby steps towards being a fucking joke instead of a complete and utter fucking joke because lets face it, you're a long way from being able to deal with the large issues let alone the issue of just polishing your fucking basic rule enforcement. but the discussion just got flooded by the same dimwitted statements about how unobservant you all are or how you think that because its common to have utter inconsistency within the moderating of the server that the existence of the problem justifies it's own existence. 

 

Yes I know cops don't always give you the same punishment cyotie, it doesn't fucking mean its an ok system. 

 

It's like if I said 'people shouldn't go to war because people die from them and they tear countries apart'

 

and some idiot responds 'well wars happen all the time so we shouldn't try to fix it because it happens alot' And don't act like the issue is unfixable 'human nature' coz anyone around knew that the staff team used to  be tight as shit compared to the players becoming mods and (a week later,) admins now.

 

 

I thought no one was listening to the S players because of the people who were being assholes about voicing their concerns but nope, even when I state it while kissing everyone's ass at the same time,

 

it appears you're all just very special people and will never understand why or even notice that your community is falling to pieces. 

 

I have logs and recorded conversations of so many cases of shitty moderating, admining and all this other corrupt shit but from memory, it gets silenced and censored immediately due to the fantastic integrity .of our admin team which doesn't in anyway consist of cock gobbling power hungry shitlords 

 

I thought I'd try to tackle the problem of the poorly mismanaged mess that is the server today in a way where I was nice about it but no one wanted to hear it like it was and no one wanted to hear it like it wasn't.

 

nerd.nu was a great thing, maybe the best minecraft community and now there are 12 year old hosted realm server admins who are laughing at us. I'll be laughing too...

Edited March 3, 2015 by Darkelmo

[TornadoHorse]

Just stop for a minute and think about what you're saying. If you are thinking about what you're saying and that is the result of it, then stop speaking. You're poorly trying to insult people who are tying to add to the discussion and using words far beyond your vocabulary to make yourself sound better than everyone else. By doing this, you've completely lost the message in what you were saying. So please, before you respond again just make sure that you know that everyone is allowed an opinion and just because it doesn't matchh yours it doesn't mean you need to get worked up about it.

If you would like to reread what I and others have said earlier and respond to them that adds to the discussion with respect then please do so, otherwise I see no reason for this thread not to be locked.

[Narissis]

I just love it when I ask for examples and get a gigantic essay in response that boils down to "they happened in the past, learn your history bro."

 

I don't give a flying fuck what happened in the past. It's in the past. Staff members are human and they can change, not only as individuals but also in the literal sense with turnover.

 

There's no point bringing up and bemoaning old grudges if we're talking about the present ruleset and actions of the present staff. There's also no sense running around proclaiming that the sky is falling and that the community is crumbling before our very eyes... because it's not. Sorry.

 

A few perceived slights does not a failed community make.

 

I feel as though this whole debate about the rules is rooted in the salt of a few people who pushed their luck too far and got burned for it. Is it really that hard to just be a considerate person and exhibit common sense in your online interactions? Is it just luck of the draw that the staff don't shit on me, or is it maybe that, I don't know, I try to be a civil person and not rile anybody up?