COMMUNITY

Crime and Punishment
4 years ago  ::  Jan 26 2010 - 2:51PM
Posts: 372

May I suggest that as these are the official Saints Row forums, we please reconsider how our behaviour may reflect upon the good standing of Volition and their generosity? At present we indulge in a culture of false maturity, excessive profanity, and hedonistic self interest. This relentless pursuit to prove ourselves independent to a fault can lead to unfortunate or inopportune thread closures and other disciplinary actions by moderators. Worse still, is that all are currently judged guilty by association. Perhaps, instead, we can help promote constructive, positive, and respectful behaviour. How?

Let us consider the reaction betrayed when post counts were reduced during our recent move to this new site. Our members were well displeased with the losses incurred. I propose this be part of a new form of reprisal for unacceptable behaviour. And, to those that wonder what would be considered acceptable, we do have rules posted. Which brings up a small point. Perhaps, if they are not currently so informed, new members to the forums might receive immediate notification of the rules upon joining. But to return the main:

-Any member of Thug or lower rank (0-50 posts) could receive an official warning for a first offense. A secondary offense could bring an immediate 50% reduction in their post count and a final warning. A third offense would incur a ban.

-Members of Thug or higher rank (50-10000+ posts) could receive the same official first warning for being in violation of the rules. As a senior member they could be granted the recourse of accepting a voluntary ban (reasonable length of time) for a second offense, their post count remaining unaffected. However, failure to notify a moderator of their intent to leave the forum within twenty-four (24) hours of having received a second warning would see a 50% reduction to their post count. A third slip would see them banned.

-Those members having been banned, readmitted to the forum, yet again found to be in violation of the rules (thus their 4th warning) could receive a 25% reduction to their post count. This in effect would be their last chance to have learned what is expected of members. A further offense should see permanent expulsion. Why?

It is about creating an environment wherein guests and members alike can comfortably co-exist. We can effectively remove, or at lease reduce, instances of retaliation, were members assured of a system being in place to summarily deal with perpetrators. Not only this, but imagine the reduction in moderator time to be gained. And, eventually, we could enjoy a community peopled by members of character and worth, not those that would have proven themselves only interested in disharmony and strife. I truly fear that our present format lacks the conviction to foster constructive growth and fairness. Thank-you for reading.

-Kitten

6 years ago  ::  Jul 30 2008 - 3:52PM
Posts: 390

You Have Beautiful Eyes. ;)

6 years ago  ::  Jul 30 2008 - 4:00PM
LoC
Posts: 2713

As much as I enjoy the thought of watching OGluke's post count drop, I don't think something like this could be maintained.

It's a good concept, however, it sounds like a lot of work for iMac, Sing, and the other mods.

6 years ago  ::  Jul 30 2008 - 4:29PM
Posts: 412

Diplomacy ftw.

It looks good on paper, but I think that actually acting on it and weeding it out would be more trouble than it's worth. As Daddy Go Bot would say, we're drowning in a flood here, one that's only likely to grow as the gap between present and release closes (slow as that progress may seem).

6 years ago  ::  Jul 31 2008 - 12:55PM
Posts: 372

Quote by FelixMG
Diplomacy ftw.

It looks good on paper, but I think that actually acting on it and weeding it out would be more trouble than it's worth. As Daddy Go Bot would say, we're drowning in a flood here, one that's only likely to grow as the gap between present and release closes (slow as that progress may seem).

What flood would that be? If you believe the point to my suggestion is to weed out noobs, then you are grossly mistaken. And, with regard to Daddy Go Bot (my Mr. B.), though I do not much mind his insistence of calling out every noob or practically unanswerable post, he could probably better serve the forum by adopting some other approach. So, what then was my idea intended to address? Unruly behaviour. Rule breaking. At present, we do not have any rules objecting to spam, failure to perform proper searches, or the creation of threads that offer little chance for on topic discussion. We do, however, have rules regarding conduct. And, this latter issue, is to what this thread pertains.

So far arguments against the logic of the idea appear focused on how it would actually be implemented and whether this will mean greater work for moderators. I submit that the crux of the idea is the isolation of instigators. That discovering their presence in threads should not prove overly troublesome.

Were I to dismantle my own idea, I would point to the very existence of moderators here. To have entire threads closed due to the actions of one or two individuals speaks of a police state mentality. Granted that as the forums are made available by those very same people, one has to assume that a restricted environment was not their intention. Thus, there is a logic puzzle at work here.

If the best solution, though unlikely to happen, is to eliminate moderators altogether, then the next best thing is have a system that encourages positive interaction and participation. A system wherein moderators leave as small as possible a footprint with regard to disciplinary actions. Following the metaphor of a police state, we should follow those procedures that seek to capture and remove the main people responsible for encouraging violations of conduct. Once they are out of the system, order will resume and members will see that adherence to site rules must be observed. That freedom demands accepting that of others.

But, I have already looked at my proposal and weighed its logic. The question of maximising the efficiency of moderator work already previously considered. And, in answer, it is more efficient to remove determined rule breakers than to shut down discussion, if one's interest is in maintaining a forum.

-Kitten

6 years ago  ::  Jul 31 2008 - 1:21PM
Posts: 412

Quote by Venetia
What flood would that be? If you believe the point to my suggestion is to weed out noobs, then you are grossly mistaken.

In no way was I suggesting that 'noobs' as it was put were to be the flood. With the pending release date of ANY game, especially one as popular as the Saints Row series, it's highly likely to attract a large number of fans discovering a new thirst for knowledge. What better place for that knowledge than the developer's own board dedicated to the game?

What I was referring to is not an attack at newcomers (we're all new at some point, be it to a specific board or to the internet in general) but that with his greatly increased number in participants, the typical percentages apply. Now it becomes a numbers game.

While it may be Singular's sole position to moderate the board, his position with Volition is not solely to read through every thread ever posted and look for trouble, especially considering that manytimes it's walking a fine line. You could ask yourself the difference between a fight on a playground or outside of a bar. Both times it's hot tempers, but is one punished worse than the other? But with the growing flood (referring to the shear number of members), scanning through each and every post looking for innappropriate material becomes their job, which I assumed was originally to keep the fans posted on information as it is released and answer the few questions that they can to help appease us and keep our attention and excitement.

The hot tempers and the disrespect honestly has no true solution, only bandaid fixes. I feel that the moderators resort to closing threads as a way to end the heated conversation (or at least take it behind closed doors). When they begin black-listing members, they must think about hard-feelings and how that effects the fan base. Perhaps those members even have something to contribute to the board. Despite their oftentimes obnoxious and frustrating actions, they have just as much right to be here as the rest of us and just as much to offer the other members in the way of ideas and suggestions.

I understand the idea as a method of discipline, hoping that it'll keep members from becoming too loose-lipped in public, but discipline is a much longer, harder road than all that.

Either way, I hope that there were no hard feelings about miscommunication, I just see the board growing to a point that punishing individual members would lead poor Sing and Imac to call in sick for dread of having to babysit rather than commune.

6 years ago  ::  Jul 31 2008 - 1:30PM
Posts: 6331

Oh man, that's a lot of words! :shock:

This'll take me awhile just to wrap my head around this thread, let alone the idea it's trying to convey...

6 years ago  ::  Jul 31 2008 - 1:40PM
Posts: 390

Quote by V-TheiMacMan
Oh man, that's a lot of words! :shock:

This'll take me awhile just to wrap my head around this thread, let alone the idea it's trying to convey...

LOL She Is Too Smart For Me, I Don't Wan't To Get On The Wrong Side Of Her. :D

6 years ago  ::  Jul 31 2008 - 3:13PM
Posts: 177

All good points, now for my 2 cents.

Venetia, I dont nessessarily think that a reduction in post count really counts as a serious punishment...??? Yes? No? I mean, Im just looking at it through this perspective of...how many people sit there and worry about their post count. I know I dont.

Secondly: If something happens that requires the ban hammer to fall on someone, even if they have been here for a while or a fresh newbie, so be it. If they have hard feelings about it, thats their problem. I believe in fair warnings, yes, mess up once, shame on you, dont do it again. Mess up twice, you are out (maybe for a week, month...whatever). Mess up really bad (third strike), peace out, have a good life. Rules are there for a reason. Civility can be reached even in a forum if everyone tries.

I do, however, agree with the immediate notification of the rules to new members as Venetia stated. It is the duty of the new member to read the rules and agree to them upon joining.

Its also the duty of current members to be good models for each other (and to new members) of how the conduct of a forum should run. I know its the internet, and people can get away with saying things to someone via the anonymous mask of the computer because it severely reduces them getting punched in the face in reality, but...just dont talk trash to other people if you disagree with them. Either disagree with someone maturely or just dont say anything at all. Its not that difficult of a thing.

6 years ago  ::  Jul 31 2008 - 3:25PM
Posts: 372

Quote by FelixMG
Either way, I hope that there were no hard feelings about miscommunication, I just see the board growing to a point that punishing individual members would lead poor Sing and Imac to call in sick for dread of having to babysit rather than commune.

We debate. Our trust in reasoned thought having us remain colleagues, not enemies. Logically then, the forum is likely, hopefully, to grow. That we are considering possible solutions to current and future problems, only to our credit. We may disagree, but our hearts are in the right place. Now then.

I am not a moderator here. So, whether this plan is adopted or dismissed is not my problem. I happen to like V-Singular and V-TheiMacMan for what I have seen of their efforts and manner. But, it was not I who told them to step forward and accept additional work. Hey, you have to know when to head for the hills. ; )

As to discipline. This forum is intended for adults. Sometimes members may feel the need to use colourful modes of speech. You know, just to get their *%#@*?$ point across. And, really, that sort of thing should be fine. However, when people insist on using racial slurs, attacks to a person's private life, or references to the possible sexual orientation of another then they have crossed over the forum guidelines.

Inappropriate behaviour quickly tends to lead to flamewars. Moderators should have no real difficulty in noticing such activity. And to help manage the, as you say, growing need members can also act with responsibility by reporting instances of misconduct. But this is still only part of the issue.

Yes, I can appreciate that sometimes threads need to be closed. And, I also am aware that doing so is standard procedure at many forums. The unfortunate thing is that this knowledge is also held by those individuals who would seek to spoil things. Having a strong understanding of how things work helps them to beat the system, as it were. In what other way can this seriously harm a forum?

There are instances when particular threads or topics really ought to exist at the forum. These threads may well be controversial, but to lose them absolutely detrimental to us all. The solution of closing such threads (for example) is to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. There simply has to be another viable solution.

So, it means moderators will have to be vigilant, members helpful by making reports, and decisions taken to excise what carcinogens need be. Again, the idea of using a reduction in post count and eventual permenant ban on such individuals who refuse to comply with forum rules, is meant to strengthen what is already in place. And, sorry to address this so late, but I seriously doubt Volition are fearful of antagonising their fanbase by having excommunicated a few malcontents. Certainly not V-Cris Shotta; he of the 'I don't crack whips, I pound sledgehammers!'

-Kitten

P.S. Were the budget for moderator work remain fixed at current levels due poor financial returns from SR2 (hardly likely), then perhaps Volition might consider accepting voluntary moderators to help with the load.