Good Bye SWR Options

[TheDR]

I would like to bring up my resignation from the ROTR Beta testing team and that this will be the first and last post on this forum.
This is for many reasons, one being that I'd rather be in the company of friends than in the company of stroppy children. The second being, quoting a conversation i was having earlier "the power structure of this forum is corrupt to the core".

I wish you luck on all your modding endeavors.

Good morning, and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!

[The_Hunter]

I dunno where you got the idea that we are "corrupt to the core" when we haven't even been around for more than a few days so i wonder how you can even make a judgement like that i think that is rather foolish.

But if you wish to part for reasons like that we're not stopping you.

[Comr4de]

This is really a rather surprise Doc and while I have no idea why your reasons have been so we can only respect it. I'd like to talk about it at some point but I do wish you the best of luck and whatever you may uphold in the future

[E.V.E.]

You're saying Goodbye before we can fully say Hello?

Okay, goodbye then.

- E.V.E.

[Mr.Kim]

Well, this very suprise for me, TheDR.

I guess wish good luck to you.

[beefJeRKy]

Goodbye Doc.

[Stinger]

I think you have made a very serious allegation here which has reflected poorly on yourself as there was no basis for it. We are, at our core, made up of ex forum staff from another board and we were given those positions because we were deemed to be trustworthy individuals. Each of us upheld our positions and fulfilled the roles expected to be carried out by us. To make a sweeping statement like that is to wipe out in a single moment all the good that we have ever done for the community we worked for.

[Overdose]

That's your call DR. Goodbye and good luck.

[/'J]

*Wanders in*
To be fair to Doc, he was asked to move his work and his loyalties form FS to a new forum with a power structure that is completely influenced by members of the SWR team. As far as the power structure goes, SWR is the be all and end all here, and there is no secondary, indifferent opinion within the moderating team. If all admins think the same way and act for the same singular cause, then decisions will become lopsided and poor. Frankly, if I had not already been fired along with Rich and several others prior to the move, my thoughts would have been exactly the same.

[Comr4de]

Alright look here's the deal.



I'm sick and tired of having to deal with forum drama for a lifetime. Our decision to move was inherently our own call, we did suggest some changes to Fallout Studios guidelines, but if you at some point found out what they were, you realize that it was for the betterment of that forum. What they were?

I'll let you and everyone know, they weren't radical changes:
A clearer mod hosting policy - the additional guidelines were simple: Mods that wanted to join would either turn in an alpha (that was default) OR Documentation for their mod (Game Design Documents so the modders could show that rather than their mod itself to the staff)
A clearer hostee policy - we wanted to keep mods that were already hosted there be more active by adding a guidelines of at least 1(!) new unit a month, if you were to look now on some mods hosted there, some are literally dead and needed some sort of incentive to be jumpstarted.
A Mature forum for 18+ members. This is self explanatory, justa forum where members could talk about anything without the worry of youngsters joining.

There was a clear division between opinions and even though it seems like a simple addition to the guidelines, there were arguments, discussions and a mere division between the staff. That is why we moved and decided to get away from it all to avoid more drama.
Even after just adding these suggestions, which were interpreted instead as a threat we'd leave, we had suggested some of these in the past we decided to bring it up once more because we already had the idea in mind to move if it were rejected.

Sure this is arguable between the staff that was composed back in the day but it was still a decision we wanted to see, even if it was accepted or not we had the backup to simply moving, which seemed like an inviting decision anyway.

So thats that story, I'm not sure when the "corruption" part set in as we did everything just. The only thing that we may have done that was rather extreme was deleting all of our work off of FS, which while it was a jump-the-gun thing we did, we were not aware it was going to be taken in such a negative way. This was done so that future staffers would not be able to see the work, not that we did not trust the current staff, but the staffers who would appear there with bad intentions, sure there's no way in knowing but can you really blame us for protecting our work?

So that's it, the plain truth, go ahead and ask me anything, you'll see that our motives were out of pure interest of FS and while it wasn't taken we decided to move, betterment for both forums.

Now please, can each party just get along and move on with our lives? I don't want to repeat myself or explain myself for things I've clearly stated here, you may ask me whatever you wish on msn and I'll gladly talk to you.

So lets move on, it's a time to celebrate our move regardless of what anyone who thinks down of this.

[/'J]

Looking at the differences in rules between here and FS, I'd say there is one GLARING omission to what you have just posted. Your policy on bans, warning and the like is different. Far different. To quote:

We view warn Level increases and Bans as a last resort as we believe everyone has something to offer our forums.
A caution is when a user is verbally reprimanded by a Moderator, but the user's Warn Meter is not altered. Depending on the nature and severity of the offence, however, a warning may be given.
As an alternative to the Warn Level increase the Moderating Team may decide to suspend a user's posting permissions for as such time as it is necessary reflecting the nature of the offence.
Warnings will lead to an increase of the user's Warn Level from 0% to 50% depending on the severity of the offence. A second Warn Level increase from 50% to 100% will result in a permanent ban from the forums.
Cautions, suspensions, warnings and bans are judged on a case by case basis at the discretion of the Moderating Team.

So you can suspend for anything for any time. That's a knee jerk reaction right there. Secondly, Warn Levels only have two stages. So it's far easier to ban people outright.

You cannot possibly suggest that you did not try and ask the admins to change this on FS when you obviously implemented the change here. This sort of thing leaves people feeling very poorly treated, and I for one can understand why FS would not yield in these areas.

Furthermore:

That is why we moved and decided to get away from it all to avoid more drama.
Even after just adding these suggestions, which were interpreted instead as a threat we'd leave, we had suggested some of these in the past we decided to bring it up once more because we already had the idea in mind to move if it were rejected.

This is contradictory in nature. You moved because of the drama, but then moved because suggestions were rejected? Right...............
This comes across as petulant in my eyes.

[Stinger]

So you can suspend for anything for any time. That's a knee jerk reaction right there. Secondly, Warn Levels only have two stages. So it's far easier to ban people outright.

Suspensions are reviewed case by case so the "time fits the crime".

Suspensions also come before warnings in most cases so it is actually not "easier to ban", as you put it.

[Revan]

Looking at the differences in rules between here and FS, I'd say there is one GLARING omission to what you have just posted. Your policy on bans, warning and the like is different. Far different. To quote:

So you can suspend for anything for any time. That's a knee jerk reaction right there. Secondly, Warn Levels only have two stages. So it's far easier to ban people outright.

You cannot possibly suggest that you did not try and ask the admins to change this on FS when you obviously implemented the change here. This sort of thing leaves people feeling very poorly treated, and I for one can understand why FS would not yield in these areas.

Furthermore:

This is contradictory in nature. You moved because of the drama, but then moved because suggestions were rejected? Right...............
This comes across as petulant in my eyes.

First off, I would like to state that I was not at all involved in this until two days ago when the move was already nearly complete. I was then presented a list of suggested changes to FS by Hunter and I agreed on all points. These changes included minor things such as updating the frontpage of FS to actually represent something other than a logo and the points mentioned above. Apparently not even one of the suggestions was accepted by FS staff. He also explained to me why a new ban policy was necessary. Not so people could get banned at will, but so that people cannot abuse the system to offend and then wait until their WL decreases and then offend again. I have seen this system on another forum I used to be admin on and it did not work either. There were people with up to 50 warning level changes who kept playing the system while anyone with common sense would have long since banned them. I do not at all see the point in warning level decreases. Basically once the WL is decreased it gives the offender another free offense and nothing else. This buffer for the clever, yet arrogant, insulting and fuss-creating members is unnecessary in my opinion.

[/'J]

I am well aware of what was offered to the admins. The issue that was forthcoming was that none of the remaining FS admins could find a point that they liked that one of the others did not agree with. As a whole the request was turned down. However, there are certain points that could see implementation in the future if they went to a vote one by one, I would imagine. And I have no idea who you think has played the system on FS, as there is nobody on there who has done so in my memory, having seen the warn lists. The warning system is very fair, with each person being reviewed after a period of three months, as was done in the case of Chris, who's ban was rescinded after a period of three months. The three-tier system allows punishments to be administered fairly and across the board. Warnings/suspensions handed out at the discretion of the admins is not a wise move in my eyes, especially in a community where all of the admins are orientated towards the same set of projects.

[Comr4de]

One only wonders what your intentions of posting this are, other than identifying and calling out certain mistakes in writing that contradict one another. What is it that you are trying to prove? Something to find perhaps? Some dark secret that doesn't exist? What is your point in even continuing this?

We are not a dictatorship, totalitarian government, radical party, rebels or anything you may title us. We are a mod team, consisted of friends who we've worked with one another for years that at the core care for our work with devotion and passion. For you to entitle us as anything as corrupted or such is not only preposterous but down right ridiculous as we only suggested some ideas we had to make the forum better, and with that, well it didnt work did it? So we moved. It's as simple and comprehensable as that. What else do you want to know? Names, birth dates, social security numbers? What do you want to know, and what are you trying to prove?

[Cobretti]

Well, that's too bad. Goodbye and goodluck, Dr.

[/'J]

Thanks you for totally proving the point that I was originally posting about Comr4de. I am not suggesting that you are a bad modding team, nor am I attempting to take personal pot-shots at you or the rest of the team, and I certainly do not want your personal information as you over-indulgently posted - on the whole I respect you as modders.

And bang slap we have hit the issue here. As the entire moderating team is made of members of your team, and is yet on a public forum, it will be impossible for members of the public to differentiate between the two sections, and it will also be far harder to understand when critique is being pointed at you as modders, or as moderators. While you may feel that FS was limiting you, by being a part of FS and not the whole of FS, people could differentiate. Now, you may have a public forum, but it doesn't really seem inviting to others when the entire moderating team is made of the team. If you needed a team forums with no particular rules for your team, it should have stayed private. If you wanted a public forum with place for your mods, you should have made sure that there were public, non SWR members who were a part of the moderating team. You missed both of those targets, and have as a result, a bastardised concoction of the two. While I critique the leadership structure of the the forums here, you took it so personally, as if I were insulting you, and the rest of your SWR team, and yet that was not intended in the least bit.

Oh, and if you can point out where I called you corrupt I would be much obliged, as I don't recall ever having been that offensive. I have been genuine, simply critiquing the way the forum is being run, and being diverted occasionally to slightly off-topic moments regarding the choices made over on FS. If you cannot see the line between where the moderating and the modding splits, this forum will fail before it has even started, and become as deserted as so many other forums are. To build a community you must be accepting of the community, and by filling all of the moderating spots with members of your own team, you are giving a strong air of elitism, which no community responds well to.

In finality - while this forum continues to blur the lines between what is a moderator and what is a team member, there can be no gain made. FS worked because for the most part you were aligned with modding, or with the community. Now you're stuck and don't know which to choose, if there is a choice at all.

[Comr4de]

How is running a modding forum impossible to run if it's composed by mod team members? I thought that's what you want to accomplish so anyone who joins in as a staffer can relate. Whenever the forum grows and staffers are needed, we will use the same method we did before based on members who have been active, been polite and have a clear understanding of our forum rules, the exact same as what E Studios once was, so by saying that our system is flawed your saying the same for Fallout Studios as I and the other admins here worked at there for years.

FS was not limiting us, we simply wanted to move because we could no longer agree with most of the staffers and that is all.

As far as modding goes we already plan on creating a hostee's guide to getting hosted so it just wont be limited to us, my colleagues at my school have several projects that range from Source to RA3 to independent and will be hosted here whenever they wish and or they meet the specific guidlines that I've mentioned to them, it's not a guarantee but we plan to make a forum not limited to ZH but other games that range outside of RTS. Please explain to me how that is bastardized rather than giving it a title.

When I called out the corrupt part I was not calling you out, but also those who have titled us as so, for whatever reason they have. As for the rest, time will tell if things work or not and while we take your critique as so, it's been overshadowed by other issues you've brought up.

It's all arguable, and by asking the previous I know get where you are coming from. I did take offense to it but only because I was brought up with multiple things today, with that I have to apologize for my tone.

[Razven]

I think everyone is a little overreacting to or misinterpreting the comments and perhaps everyone just needs a little time to adjust and calm down first.

Now, to add my own thoughts on this move:
I personally do not agree with this forum move, unpopular as it may sound, I see no benefit in this move to anybody but the administration team. In regards for the supposed 'embetterment', although I can find the reason behind it, I do not see it as a big enough reason to justify the move.

Forums have and constantly will have drama, it is a unfortunate truth that some choose to toe the line but it is also the fault of moderating team to publicly antagonize them back, giving fuel to a flame. In FS, rules are not as often enforced as they could be - note not 'should' be. If rules are more often applied, then toeing the line behavior would decrease.

The above would theoretically apply to Warnings and Suspensions but it should be noted that there will always be members toeing the line, no matter how tightly you enforce the rules. Also technically speaking, if a forum applies a 2-strike instead of a 3-strike Warning/Ban, then it is possible that moderators would feel less inclined to issue a ban as it is now more serious. However, since the lot of you wrote it, there is nothing that can be said.

Also, the use of a 'case-by-case' review of how harsh the punishment is seems rather unjust and unclear, it will become easy to abuse if it is unclear. Two warnings resulting in a ban should be just that, any prior punishment should come before a particular 'step' into the punishment procedure or enforcing of rules.

Also, I would like state that if a mod is basically dead, then it is the business of those in that particular mod, it is understandable from a mod-hosting websites's perspective to ensure mods are updated, but it is not the job of another modder or a moderating team. A reminder of some sort, worded from a peer to a peer would be sufficient. If the mod leader does not respond or states his is no longer interested, then steps may be taken from there. Not before and certainly not as a forum rule.

Also, although it has been routinely denied that SWR is a dictatorship, it has always been believed that this is how it's run as there has been nothing to disprove these allegations and your average member is kept in the dark on a lot of things for quite some time. It is only natural for those who don't know to guess. This of course, would include the corruption charges brought up several times - it is pointed a several incidents and not this forum as a whole.

[CommanderJB]

While I have every wish for SWR to succeed in its new home here and no desire to see any bad blood generate between here and Fallout Studios, I feel that to leave certain statements made within this thread without comment would be inequitable and thus not conducive to a trusting and helpful atmosphere of friendship between our two communities. If this is the wrong venue for these comments then I apologise, but as no other one appears to offer itself I will do so here for the mean time.

These changes included minor things such as updating the frontpage of FS to actually represent something other than a logo and the points mentioned above. Apparently not even one of the suggestions was accepted by FS staff.

This a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and something I would not have expected to be said. I don't believe any of the FS leadership expressed an issue with the website changes, and I can speak for myself when I say that I openly supported the suggested changes to the hosting policy. Unfortunately the suggestions were made in such a way as not to be open to virtually any negotiation whatsoever, which meant that when displeasure was expressed at some of the suggestions the entire matter was a foregone conclusion (or at least felt like it was, which is just as unhelpful). This caused negative reactions from some of the FS leadership, which, in combination with general emotions in regard to such a large change to both groups, led to an unfortunate atmosphere of mistrust which was amplified by actions from both sides, of which the deletion of the staff forums, in contravention of FS administration policy, was the last. Once again these matters were not negotiated on, despite the fact that I feel if they had been problems would not have occurred. This was the fault of both 'sides'. Neither 'side' is in the right just as much as neither 'side' is in the wrong, and it pains me to even phrase it in this manner, and the negative effects that have generated have been caused by fundamental failures in communication and not any desire for them by any party.

With regard to warning level changes, I would like to state that this scenario:

There were people with up to 50 warning level changes who kept playing the system while anyone with common sense would have long since banned them. I do not at all see the point in warning level decreases. Basically once the WL is decreased it gives the offender another free offense and nothing else.

Was simply not the case on Fallout Studios. Warning level changes were infrequent at best and rarely occurred more than a handful of times in any one case (offhand I can't even think of one with more than five or six, if that). I do not believe it is unjust to un-warn a member that has shown good behaviour, and all actions take past references into account.

I hope that our respective communities can respect this moment as a time when different beliefs led to different requirements, all of which were reasonable and should be respected, and as such, led to a parting that will in the end prove beneficial for all of our aims.

This post has been edited by CommanderJB: 7 Jun 2009, 7:49

[MARS]

Generally speaking, I'm a little disappointed by these harsh reactions. The move may have been unexpected and it may seem entirely unreasonable to you but that's still no reason to treat us, who've been doing their jobs on ES/FS for freaking YEARS, like a bunch of authoritarian, ego-wanking rogues. This isn't another DT-Studios, not another obscure hiding place for the failures and rejects to sing their dirges against their old forum. Even though we might no longer agree with the bigger part of your policies, we still respect them. We just don't want to abide by them any longer because we found our policies to be more agreeable. Those of us who still log in to FS will follow their rules so there's no reason for bad blood.

[Razven]

To be honest, there had always been more than a little tension between certain members of the admin/staff/mod group with more than a few members, not pointing any fingers here but it should be noted that a sudden move was not the best choice nor is the backlash a random spontaneous knee-jerk reaction - it's just the long simmering tension finally boiling over due to this cataclysmic event.

[Comr4de]

There more I look at this thread the more I think it's appropriate if someone makes a new thread over at the SWR Comments Box as this was merely a good bye from Doc.


Even though it's been drastically changed this way I think it's best we let this thread die and start anew with this discussion at an appropriate place.