In recent weeks I’ve been made aware of concerns regarding the Dogfight forum. These concerns have been expressed via forum post, private message and email by players, fellow moderators, and friends. As a player and moderator myself, with no direct involvement in the heated conflicts and debates raging on various threads, I may have a useful perspective that those more involved and less objective lack. Although some of what I’m about to share has been discussed among the Moderators in our ModSquad Google Group, this should be regarded as the observations of one Dogfight community member. While we agree on much of the following, Dogfight Mods are individuals with unique and equally valid points of view. The other Mods either have made, or will make, their feelings known as they see fit.

First and foremost, the Dogfight forum, like the game, is designed and intended as a source of fun. There are no hard and fast rules. What is fun for one member is clearly not always going to be fun for all. Often not for many. Or any. Being a largely open forum we all allow for our differences and differing tastes. But, certain things can be said to be universal. Among them are the inappropriateness of aggressively vulgar language and the espousing of hate based philosophies, the unacceptability of attack posts and the character assassination of fellow members.

I, in my capacity as Moderator, will happily delete anything I see on the forum that fits the above descriptions. We all understand that these judgments can tread close to subjective lines. We all also have to suck it up and deal with that fact. This is the perennial problem inherent in any venue where a few are charged with the responsibility of policing a rapidly expanding community the size and diversity of Dogfight. Dogfight’s creator, Joaquin, and I feel strongly that such a community should be given the space to breathe. Mistakes will be made, it’s the nature of social media. It’s also why Joaquin elected to appoint a group of Moderators. We don’t function merely as ban-happy in-game cops. It’s part of our job to keep this forum moving forward in the spirit of entertainment and camaraderie. It goes without saying that those words mean different things to different people, there are almost as many degrees of maturity, sophistication and decorum as there are people playing this game. Cultural, regional, environmental differences play into almost all exchanges here. Diversity is what makes the forum great when it’s great and frustrating when it’s not. We seem currently to be squarely in a moment of “not”.

When threads and posts of the sort we’ve seen over the last two weeks threaten to derail the forum or sour its tone for the bulk of the community, even I from my staunchly anti-censorship stance recognize the need to act. There are players and posters here who disagree, who feel that Moderators should allow any posts, on any subject, with any content they choose to include, to go unchallenged. Those players are welcome to take their questionable content and their complaints elsewhere. If you feel that you are the arbiter of what is and isn’t appropriate content for this all-ages forum, you feel wrong. Some cases in point:

Team-killing is unacceptable. When we catch someone team-killing he/she will be banned.

Four letter words, racist or sexist sentiment, abusive language are all unacceptable in World Chat, in the game, on the forum. Those who engage in these behaviors will be muted and/or banned.

Yattering “EXTERMINATE!” is, subjectively, tiresome after the several hundredth time, but is not unacceptable. It’s just dumb. Dumb or brilliant, it is not a ban-worthy offence. If your thread is being cluttered with a juvenile run-on joke, your in-squad thread moderator should delete the offending posts. Better still, stop railing at the poster, it’s precisely the kind of attention with which you’re showering him that he craves. Ignore him, delete him, he’ll go away. Squad threads are where edgier content should be allowed, so long as it’s in reasonably good taste. Each squad is different and the content on their respective threads will always reflect those differences. Players who find one squad’s humor objectionable are free to prowl the threads of other squads or the wealth of non-squad threads. As with television, radio, the internet, the content you access is entirely your choice. If you encounter something offensive on a thread, refrain from visiting that thread.

All of which is not to say there aren’t standards by which we all need to conduct ourselves. I am, frankly, tired of the weak excuse that inevitably contains the ubiquitous, “Well then, tell us what the rules are…how can we follow the rules when you won’t say what they are?” This is a copout. You’re a person of eighteen or twenty-eight or forty-eight or sixty-eight years and you can’t behave responsibly without strangers holding your hand? Whenever I see this lame dodge I think, “You don’t need me to tell you the rules, you need to go to bed without dessert.” If you can’t, at whatever age you are, make the simple determination that certain content is inappropriate on a forum that welcomes thirteen year olds, you yourself are inappropriate and need to move on. Aggressive lewdness or vulgarity, pornographic images or text, attacking other players, deriding other squads, assaulting the character of Moderators… if you’re immature enough, or self-absorbed enough, to think you’re above reproach, again, take that shtick to another forum, it doesn’t play here. If, as many of us agree, the forum has taken a turn for the ugly, it’s precisely this sort of irresponsibility from veteran players (who should be striving to be role models, not behaving like petulant kids) that fuels such a shift. If you’ve been censored by a Mod more than once, consider stopping posting censorable content. A presumably intelligent adult should have no difficulty grasping this simple precept. A grown-up brat with a piece of chalk scrawling his whining on a public wall should not be surprised if he’s edited, deleted, muted or banned. Play it as close to the line as you choose, but when you push expect to be pushed back. It’s why we’re here, to protect the 99% of players who aren’t interested in your agenda. The “I don’t know where the line is” argument is childish. If you intentionally kill a teammate, if you intentionally bomb a friendly hangar, if you type around the asterisks in World Chat, if your name contains a racist epithet, if you slander, libel, defame or insult another player or squad, if you defy or dodge a ban or the instructions of a Moderator, you will be muted, banned, re-banned. From the thirteen year old end of Dogfight’s age range I anticipate and even applaud the testing of limits. From the thirty-plus contingent I’m embarrassed by it. This from one of DF’s most vocal proponents of free speech. Seriously, c’mon…use your freakin’ head.

In the wake of the recent wave of mini-controversies The Mods have discussed imposing some sort of punishment for what are usually considered punishable behaviors on the forum, but elected to refrain. While there is some dispute over what constitutes trolling, anti-trolling, conspiring to anti-troll-troll, passively or actively slamming players and/or Mods, Dogfight history supports sanctions against members who seem determined to disrupt, inflame, upset or insult. We aren't cops, we aren't the correctness police, but we've been entrusted by Joaquin with the job of maintaining certain standards within his game and its community. We take the responsibility seriously and don't appreciate being derided for doing precisely what we volunteer our time and energy to do. Any player with a grievance is encouraged to communicate directly, privately, with any Moderator. We welcome your input and will make every effort to address your concerns. If, however, your preferred method of conflict resolution is public ax-grinding we regard that as disruptive and will not tolerate your turning the forum into a personal soapbox. Not everyone here is as interested in what you think as you are. The forum is here for everyone in Dogfight, not just for you.

Expect a list of guidelines to be forthcoming from the Mods. Guidelines, not Rules. We are determined to not let a minority drive this open environment toward becoming a virtual police state. We don’t tell you what to do, we expect you to know. And we expect you to except to be edited, deleted, muted, temporarily or permanently banned when you intentionally cross what you must be bright enough to know is the line. As I said near the top of this post, while my personal leaning is away from anything resembling stringent control, I will not hesitate to mute and/or ban anyone clearly striving to ruin the experience Joaquin has worked so hard to provide and we’ve all worked hard to maintain.

--w--

Bravo wigster!

Wig, a typically erudite, irrefutable post. Nobody in his or her right mind would dispute what you say about our collective responsibility. If there is an air of dissatisfaction amongst some of the senior players, it is not because the rules and principles of the forum are misunderstood; it is more to do with the conduct of some of the moderators and the sometimes inconsistent application of the authority they carry. When formulating new guidelines for us, perhaps you could review the guidelines for yourselves. Your dissertation emphasises moderator responsibility, but it's a bit light on moderator accountability. Of course, you don't need to be accountable; of course we can go elsewhere if not happy with the regime; of course you can ban us and mute us at will; but we are not all as simple minded and childish as your post suggests. People do and say stupid things from time to time, but the vast majority of us are well meaning and thoughtful all the time. Although every issue and complaint raised can be rebutted in detail, there is a theme emerging. This last few weeks of discourse, although resulting in the put down of a few dissidents, reflects badly on us all - including those in authority.

Ok I got half-way threw your post Sir. wig! Then slapped myself twice (wish I would of tried harder in school).
Then read Ronnie's post... Slapped myself again!!
Good point!
Good point!
Yah that one was good too!

I will write more when I have the time, just saw that this had 99 views and two post! So funny how so many like to chime in all the time, yet only one (another very respectable player to me) was abel to respond with some valid points. Edit: Jacob your the bomb to, did not mean for that to sound bad.

Thank both of you for your time and being open minded that this "funk" that all of us are feeling needs to be address. I am great with sarcasm as are many around here. For some reason it feels to cheap for me to use at this point. I also believe in GOD, I talk to him everyday, it also feels cheap to see some use this in an inappropriate way. (Not for me to judge and am in no way trying to stir the pot we all know it needs fixing)

Also I am not up on the latest vibe of the forum so this already may be old hat and a new villain might be taking a beating over some "CRAZY NEW WAY" of tweaking the foundation of this game.

I agree some (whole bunch) of this on all sides has become embarrassing.

I wish all of you that read this, like it or hate it a wonderful day of peace, and hope we all can take the time to work together with it.

Wig

Your letter makes it clear that my offer of benevolent dictatorship has been declined. C'est la vie! I will now resume my role as a minion of M.O.M!!

Ronnie Biggs wrote: Wig, a typically erudite, irrefutable post. Nobody in his or her right mind would dispute what you say about our collective responsibility. If there is an air of dissatisfaction amongst some of the senior players, it is not because the rules and principles of the forum are misunderstood; it is more to do with the conduct of some of the moderators and the sometimes inconsistent application of the authority they carry. When formulating new guidelines for us, perhaps you could review the guidelines for yourselves. Your dissertation emphasises moderator responsibility, but it's a bit light on moderator accountability. Of course, you don't need to be accountable; of course we can go elsewhere if not happy with the regime; of course you can ban us and mute us at will; but we are not all as simple minded and childish as your post suggests. People do and say stupid things from time to time, but the vast majority of us are well meaning and thoughtful all the time. Although every issue and complaint raised can be rebutted in detail, there is a theme emerging. This last few weeks of discourse, although resulting in the put down of a few dissidents, reflects badly on us all - including those in authority.

Rob, the only thing you've said with which I'd take exception is that anything in my post is irrefutable. I undertook writing it with the expectation firmly in mind that refuted, and intelligently, it would be. I by no means felt that I would successfully address all the points that needed addressing but trusted that those points would be made, as you've done, when I'd had the benefit of a little more sleep. And so...

Yes, of course, the Mods should always be accountable for our actions. I tend, and tended in my post, to take that and some other things as goes-without-saying givens. I suppose I shouldn't, but I'm inclined to expect the best of people. Too late to change that lifelong pattern now. It's possible, too, that my slant is at least partly the product of my behind-the-curtain view of the Moderators as individuals and as a body. I see how much these guys care about our game and forum, how intensely they scrutinize themselves and their decisions, the laudable degree of responsibility they bring to something they're doing without reward and often at the price of being reviled as a "cop" by immature players. Without suggesting that Moderators are martyrs, it's worth pointing out that it's largely a thankless job and one done exceptionally well by my fellow Mods.

On the same note, no Mod should execute a ban, mute, edit or delete without having first informed (or informed after the fact in time sensitive cases) the player being banned, muted, edited or deleted. It's been mentioned that I failed to address the issue of Mod transparency. Again, this was an oversight based upon my assuming the best of us. I would never implement a sanction without informing the player being disciplined. The closest I ever come is when I kick a player in the heat of a game. The kick is almost always prefaced by either a comment such as, "Hey spawnkiller, you're being a jagoff, stop or be kicked." a question such as, "Hey jagoff, are you going to stop spawnkilling or shall I kick you?" or a capsule summary of the situation, such as, "Jagoff."

I rarely mess with forum content. My overarching position on free speech and the responsibility of the individual to police himself/herself is well established here. I'm sure it's fair to say that almost all other Mods spend more time than I patrolling the forum. My hope is that any action taken by a Mod is taken with full disclosure to the poster being edited or deleted. But, as I said in my original post, there are lines over which nobody gets to step without my or a fellow Mod's completely justifiable slapintheface. I get that we aren't always the most popular people in Dogfight. I get that many people (myself included) are less than thrilled with authority figures. I get that some people with personal agendas need to learn to STFU. There are occasions when the latter needs to trump the formers.

My comments regarding mature aged players behaving immaturely were not targeted at you or at anyone other than those directly involved in the recent spate of foolish, incendiary threads and posts. You make the mistake of assuming an underlying, "This means you." What's underlying my post is, "You know who you are." A world of difference between the two intents. It's my understanding that most of the furor had to do with one player (abetted by one or two others) taking open, disrespectful shots at one Mod. (abetted by one or two others) So no, there was nothing of the blanket statement in my comments, merely a desire to pull up shy of naming names and an equal desire to discourage any further such petty assaults, by anyone. My interest was in addressing the common sense simplicity of knowing when you're intentionally stirring the pot and knowing what the repercussions of such an attention grab would almost certainly be, not in what does or does not factor into Moderator policy and certainly not in tarring everyone in Dogfight with the same brush.

--w--

Wig,

I don't know about anyone else, but I can live with that (both wig posts above). It's not far off from how I thought we were already supposed to operate, and to be operated on. Well, good to clarify.

The one new notion, or maybe old but worth highlighting, is the implied approach for airing any disagreement with mod actions. At the risk of picking up where DrDave has left off... I think it's an accurate paraphrasing of your writeup that any forum member who disagrees with a mod action should address the mod privately. I can see why you want that, although my line draws differently, but let's just agree that the resulting airing of laundry is not necessarily something appropriate for forum consumption. This is fine, except in the event that (a) the mod chose not to act as you do, and didn't communicate to the player (cuz then we don't know who to communicate to), and (b) the mod is identified but not answering the phone.

In those two cases (and let's just assume they will happen because, well, they have), it would be difficult to follow the guidance of Keep Private and Off Forum. But in the spirit of your post, which is greatly appreciated, I propose:
- Find some way to post to the mod squad privately. "Hey fellers, someone deleted my post and I didn't think it was over the top. Could one of yous guys please coach me on what pushed it over the edge for you?" In absence of a group address, maybe we send a PM to... all of you?
- That would at least put it in front of you all, and the chances of a vacationing mod causing a clog in communications would be mitigated. That's also assuming that you guys agreed among yourselves on how to handle such mass mod PMs. Which I would leave to you to define.

That would keep the exchange off the forum, although it's less transparent than I personally like, but hey it's not my forum. If this is done, it would at least be transparent to the player involved. That's goodness, right? We would of course leave open the possibility of an answer such as "your post was so far over the line, the mod group is choosing not to explain. You should already know." As you said.

Once completed, I would see no issue in the player sharing the conclusion with the forum, as long it was for communication of results and not for mod bashing. Yes?

Manfred

Well ah'll be, that post keeps showing up in various threads. Mods, while trolling isn't a ban, I think SPAMMING is. Eh?
Edit: That was in reference to the TGOG Spam, which appears to have been removed now, by himself or a mod, I dunno.

wow, mocking a mod! ur got some balls eh bud, Ur aiming for the top ranks, lol u wont last long
EDIT: I echo Manfred my post was in reference to gog. Thx mods for getting rid of the nag

Wigbomb wrote:

Ronnie Biggs wrote: Wig, a typically erudite, irrefutable post. Nobody in his or her right mind would dispute what you say about our collective responsibility. If there is an air of dissatisfaction amongst some of the senior players, it is not because the rules and principles of the forum are misunderstood; it is more to do with the conduct of some of the moderators and the sometimes inconsistent application of the authority they carry. When formulating new guidelines for us, perhaps you could review the guidelines for yourselves. Your dissertation emphasises moderator responsibility, but it's a bit light on moderator accountability. Of course, you don't need to be accountable; of course we can go elsewhere if not happy with the regime; of course you can ban us and mute us at will; but we are not all as simple minded and childish as your post suggests. People do and say stupid things from time to time, but the vast majority of us are well meaning and thoughtful all the time. Although every issue and complaint raised can be rebutted in detail, there is a theme emerging. This last few weeks of discourse, although resulting in the put down of a few dissidents, reflects badly on us all - including those in authority.

Rob, the only thing you've said with which I'd take exception is that anything in my post is irrefutable. I undertook writing it with the expectation firmly in mind that refuted, and intelligently, it would be. I by no means felt that I would successfully address all the points that needed addressing but trusted that those points would be made, as you've done, when I'd had the benefit of a little more sleep. And so...

Yes, of course, the Mods should always be accountable for our actions. I tend, and tended in my post, to take that and some other things as goes-without-saying givens. I suppose I shouldn't, but I'm inclined to expect the best of people. Too late to change that lifelong pattern now. It's possible, too, that my slant is at least partly the product of my behind-the-curtain view of the Moderators as individuals and as a body. I see how much these guys care about our game and forum, how intensely they scrutinize themselves and their decisions, the laudable degree of responsibility they bring to something they're doing without reward and often at the price of being reviled as a "cop" by immature players. Without suggesting that Moderators are martyrs, it's worth pointing out that it's largely a thankless job and one done exceptionally well by my fellow Mods.

On the same note, no Mod should execute a ban, mute, edit or delete without having first informed (or informed after the fact in time sensitive cases) the player being banned, muted, edited or deleted. It's been mentioned that I failed to address the issue of Mod transparency. Again, this was an oversight based upon my assuming the best of us. I would never implement a sanction without informing the player being disciplined. The closest I ever come is when I kick a player in the heat of a game. The kick is almost always prefaced by either a comment such as, "Hey spawnkiller, you're being a jagoff, stop or be kicked." a question such as, "Hey jagoff, are you going to stop spawnkilling or shall I kick you?" or a capsule summary of the situation, such as, "Jagoff."

I rarely mess with forum content. My overarching position on free speech and the responsibility of the individual to police himself/herself is well established here. I'm sure it's fair to say that almost all other Mods spend more time than I patrolling the forum. My hope is that any action taken by a Mod is taken with full disclosure to the poster being edited or deleted. But, as I said in my original post, there are lines over which nobody gets to step without my or a fellow Mod's completely justifiable slapintheface. I get that we aren't always the most popular people in Dogfight. I get that many people (myself included) are less than thrilled with authority figures. I get that some people with personal agendas need to learn to STFU. There are occasions when the latter needs to trump the formers.

My comments regarding mature aged players behaving immaturely were not targeted at you or at anyone other than those directly involved in the recent spate of foolish, incendiary threads and posts. You make the mistake of assuming an underlying, "This means you." What's underlying my post is, "You know who you are." A world of difference between the two intents. It's my understanding that most of the furor had to do with one player (abetted by one or two others) taking open, disrespectful shots at one Mod. (abetted by one or two others) So no, there was nothing of the blanket statement in my comments, merely a desire to pull up shy of naming names and an equal desire to discourage any further such petty assaults, by anyone. My interest was in addressing the common sense simplicity of knowing when you're intentionally stirring the pot and knowing what the repercussions of such an attention grab would almost certainly be, not in what does or does not factor into Moderator policy and certainly not in tarring everyone in Dogfight with the same brush.

--w--

Yuh hahnah suh! I doo pleed guhiltee.

(To some of it anyway).

I do agree with most of your two posts here though. Enough that I won't even take any potshots at the little bit that I don't.

Thank you for taking the time to address these concerns, and to do so in the way that you did. I guess I take the way you do business for granted and expect it from all of the mods. That's foolish I guess. But, the notification upon imposed sanction part of that post is the exact thing behind many of these arguments. Whether you intended to or not, that puts you on my side of the fence. That's a rare place for you to be.

Anyhow, I think this round of hate and discontent is about over. Wonder if I'll make it out of it? Hopefully we can go back to talking about Davy's bowel movements and such again for a while. One can dream anyway.

Manfred wrote: Wig,

I don't know about anyone else, but I can live with that (both wig posts above). It's not far off from how I thought we were already supposed to operate, and to be operated on. Well, good to clarify.

The one new notion, or maybe old but worth highlighting, is the implied approach for airing any disagreement with mod actions. At the risk of picking up where DrDave has left off... I think it's an accurate paraphrasing of your writeup that any forum member who disagrees with a mod action should address the mod privately. I can see why you want that, although my line draws differently, but let's just agree that the resulting airing of laundry is not necessarily something appropriate for forum consumption. This is fine, except in the event that (a) the mod chose not to act as you do, and didn't communicate to the player (cuz then we don't know who to communicate to), and (b) the mod is identified but not answering the phone.

In those two cases (and let's just assume they will happen because, well, they have), it would be difficult to follow the guidance of Keep Private and Off Forum. But in the spirit of your post, which is greatly appreciated, I propose:
- Find some way to post to the mod squad privately. "Hey fellers, someone deleted my post and I didn't think it was over the top. Could one of yous guys please coach me on what pushed it over the edge for you?" In absence of a group address, maybe we send a PM to... all of you?
- That would at least put it in front of you all, and the chances of a vacationing mod causing a clog in communications would be mitigated. That's also assuming that you guys agreed among yourselves on how to handle such mass mod PMs. Which I would leave to you to define.

That would keep the exchange off the forum, although it's less transparent than I personally like, but hey it's not my forum. If this is done, it would at least be transparent to the player involved. That's goodness, right? We would of course leave open the possibility of an answer such as "your post was so far over the line, the mod group is choosing not to explain. You should already know." As you said.

Once completed, I would see no issue in the player sharing the conclusion with the forum, as long it was for communication of results and not for mod bashing. Yes?

Manfred

Thanks Manfred. I miss you as a Mod.
Although I have no alternative to offer, I feel that the blacklist thread lends itself to trouble. Mary accuses John, John denies or justifies and calls Mary a name, Mary's friends see this and call John names, etc......I have no idea how, or even if, it can be done...but I feel a reporting system that can be kept off the forum would be in the best interest of the player-ship. I'm not suggesting a total lack of transparency, only limiting with whom the accusations and actions are shared with. Basically implementing "Praise in Public, Reprimand in Private"

--J-- wrote:

Manfred wrote: Wig,

I don't know about anyone else, but I can live with that (both wig posts above). It's not far off from how I thought we were already supposed to operate, and to be operated on. Well, good to clarify.

The one new notion, or maybe old but worth highlighting, is the implied approach for airing any disagreement with mod actions. At the risk of picking up where DrDave has left off... I think it's an accurate paraphrasing of your writeup that any forum member who disagrees with a mod action should address the mod privately. I can see why you want that, although my line draws differently, but let's just agree that the resulting airing of laundry is not necessarily something appropriate for forum consumption. This is fine, except in the event that (a) the mod chose not to act as you do, and didn't communicate to the player (cuz then we don't know who to communicate to), and (b) the mod is identified but not answering the phone.

In those two cases (and let's just assume they will happen because, well, they have), it would be difficult to follow the guidance of Keep Private and Off Forum. But in the spirit of your post, which is greatly appreciated, I propose:
- Find some way to post to the mod squad privately. "Hey fellers, someone deleted my post and I didn't think it was over the top. Could one of yous guys please coach me on what pushed it over the edge for you?" In absence of a group address, maybe we send a PM to... all of you?
- That would at least put it in front of you all, and the chances of a vacationing mod causing a clog in communications would be mitigated. That's also assuming that you guys agreed among yourselves on how to handle such mass mod PMs. Which I would leave to you to define.

That would keep the exchange off the forum, although it's less transparent than I personally like, but hey it's not my forum. If this is done, it would at least be transparent to the player involved. That's goodness, right? We would of course leave open the possibility of an answer such as "your post was so far over the line, the mod group is choosing not to explain. You should already know." As you said.

Once completed, I would see no issue in the player sharing the conclusion with the forum, as long it was for communication of results and not for mod bashing. Yes?

Manfred

Thanks Manfred. I miss you as a Mod.
Although I have no alternative to offer, I feel that the blacklist thread lends itself to trouble. Mary accuses John, John denies or justifies and calls Mary a name, Mary's friends see this and call John names, etc......I have no idea how, or even if, it can be done...but I feel a reporting system that can be kept off the forum would be in the best interest of the player-ship. I'm not suggesting a total lack of transparency, only limiting with whom the accusations and actions are shared with. Basically implementing "Praise in Public, Reprimand in Private"

Not a bad thought at all, but it also leaves the door open to false reports on Mod action too. Things done in the public arena leave no doubt.

It might work well if the moderators were independent of the game, and not squad and forum personalities. As is, it would be difficult.

Yeah, *public* creates a balance of power among players. Any player making numerous baseless or weak claims will lose credibility among forum members if the posts are public. If the blacklist went behind closed doors, I think you guys would be inundated with a growing number of wacko claims, and having to sift through the muck would make for an even lower coverage rate. A public blacklist, besides giving a nice heads-up to others, forces players to put some skin in the game when filing a complaint.

Jack's right about false claims on mods. By having everything go private, there is no natural give and take of the public forum. But your choice as mods. Hopefully you won't wind up with an onslaught of private mod complaints!

Reasonableness, a regular communication of it, and the resulting understanding of it, will make for continuous trust. I think if you guys are as open and consistent as Wig proposed, mistrust won't run wild. One hopes that trust would just happen naturally, but remember that you guys wield some power in those buttons and in your closeness to Zup; so there is some responsibility to nurture trust.

Then happiness will abound. And then we can all focus on virtually killing each other lol.

Manfred

It seems that the private crying system has already created some frustration. Really that is just a guess but something on those lines got stated the other day.

Wigbomb wrote:

Ronnie Biggs wrote: Wig, a typically erudite, irrefutable post. Nobody in his or her right mind would dispute what you say about our collective responsibility. If there is an air of dissatisfaction amongst some of the senior players, it is not because the rules and principles of the forum are misunderstood; it is more to do with the conduct of some of the moderators and the sometimes inconsistent application of the authority they carry. When formulating new guidelines for us, perhaps you could review the guidelines for yourselves. Your dissertation emphasises moderator responsibility, but it's a bit light on moderator accountability. Of course, you don't need to be accountable; of course we can go elsewhere if not happy with the regime; of course you can ban us and mute us at will; but we are not all as simple minded and childish as your post suggests. People do and say stupid things from time to time, but the vast majority of us are well meaning and thoughtful all the time. Although every issue and complaint raised can be rebutted in detail, there is a theme emerging. This last few weeks of discourse, although resulting in the put down of a few dissidents, reflects badly on us all - including those in authority.

Rob, the only thing you've said with which I'd take exception is that anything in my post is irrefutable. I undertook writing it with the expectation firmly in mind that refuted, and intelligently, it would be. I by no means felt that I would successfully address all the points that needed addressing but trusted that those points would be made, as you've done, when I'd had the benefit of a little more sleep. And so...

Yes, of course, the Mods should always be accountable for our actions. I tend, and tended in my post, to take that and some other things as goes-without-saying givens. I suppose I shouldn't, but I'm inclined to expect the best of people. Too late to change that lifelong pattern now. It's possible, too, that my slant is at least partly the product of my behind-the-curtain view of the Moderators as individuals and as a body. I see how much these guys care about our game and forum, how intensely they scrutinize themselves and their decisions, the laudable degree of responsibility they bring to something they're doing without reward and often at the price of being reviled as a "cop" by immature players. Without suggesting that Moderators are martyrs, it's worth pointing out that it's largely a thankless job and one done exceptionally well by my fellow Mods.

On the same note, no Mod should execute a ban, mute, edit or delete without having first informed (or informed after the fact in time sensitive cases) the player being banned, muted, edited or deleted. It's been mentioned that I failed to address the issue of Mod transparency. Again, this was an oversight based upon my assuming the best of us. I would never implement a sanction without informing the player being disciplined. The closest I ever come is when I kick a player in the heat of a game. The kick is almost always prefaced by either a comment such as, "Hey spawnkiller, you're being a jagoff, stop or be kicked." a question such as, "Hey jagoff, are you going to stop spawnkilling or shall I kick you?" or a capsule summary of the situation, such as, "Jagoff."

I rarely mess with forum content. My overarching position on free speech and the responsibility of the individual to police himself/herself is well established here. I'm sure it's fair to say that almost all other Mods spend more time than I patrolling the forum. My hope is that any action taken by a Mod is taken with full disclosure to the poster being edited or deleted. But, as I said in my original post, there are lines over which nobody gets to step without my or a fellow Mod's completely justifiable slapintheface. I get that we aren't always the most popular people in Dogfight. I get that many people (myself included) are less than thrilled with authority figures. I get that some people with personal agendas need to learn to STFU. There are occasions when the latter needs to trump the formers.

My comments regarding mature aged players behaving immaturely were not targeted at you or at anyone other than those directly involved in the recent spate of foolish, incendiary threads and posts. You make the mistake of assuming an underlying, "This means you." What's underlying my post is, "You know who you are." A world of difference between the two intents. It's my understanding that most of the furor had to do with one player (abetted by one or two others) taking open, disrespectful shots at one Mod. (abetted by one or two others) So no, there was nothing of the blanket statement in my comments, merely a desire to pull up shy of naming names and an equal desire to discourage any further such petty assaults, by anyone. My interest was in addressing the common sense simplicity of knowing when you're intentionally stirring the pot and knowing what the repercussions of such an attention grab would almost certainly be, not in what does or does not factor into Moderator policy and certainly not in tarring everyone in Dogfight with the same brush.

--w--

Rick, I am more than a little embarrassed at the time and effort you invested in your response to my whinge. Your initial post was an olive branch, which I promptly used to fuel my own brazier of dissatisfaction. Your second post was a complete olive tree, which I couldn't chop small enough to burn! I think you have done a lot to calm things down. Thanks also to Brian and Manfred for their contributions (make them mods now!), but no thanks to Dalek for his opportunistic snipe (but I did like the music).

Ronnie Biggs wrote:

Wigbomb wrote:

Ronnie Biggs wrote: Wig, a typically erudite, irrefutable post. Nobody in his or her right mind would dispute what you say about our collective responsibility. If there is an air of dissatisfaction amongst some of the senior players, it is not because the rules and principles of the forum are misunderstood; it is more to do with the conduct of some of the moderators and the sometimes inconsistent application of the authority they carry. When formulating new guidelines for us, perhaps you could review the guidelines for yourselves. Your dissertation emphasises moderator responsibility, but it's a bit light on moderator accountability. Of course, you don't need to be accountable; of course we can go elsewhere if not happy with the regime; of course you can ban us and mute us at will; but we are not all as simple minded and childish as your post suggests. People do and say stupid things from time to time, but the vast majority of us are well meaning and thoughtful all the time. Although every issue and complaint raised can be rebutted in detail, there is a theme emerging. This last few weeks of discourse, although resulting in the put down of a few dissidents, reflects badly on us all - including those in authority.

Rob, the only thing you've said with which I'd take exception is that anything in my post is irrefutable. I undertook writing it with the expectation firmly in mind that refuted, and intelligently, it would be. I by no means felt that I would successfully address all the points that needed addressing but trusted that those points would be made, as you've done, when I'd had the benefit of a little more sleep. And so...

Yes, of course, the Mods should always be accountable for our actions. I tend, and tended in my post, to take that and some other things as goes-without-saying givens. I suppose I shouldn't, but I'm inclined to expect the best of people. Too late to change that lifelong pattern now. It's possible, too, that my slant is at least partly the product of my behind-the-curtain view of the Moderators as individuals and as a body. I see how much these guys care about our game and forum, how intensely they scrutinize themselves and their decisions, the laudable degree of responsibility they bring to something they're doing without reward and often at the price of being reviled as a "cop" by immature players. Without suggesting that Moderators are martyrs, it's worth pointing out that it's largely a thankless job and one done exceptionally well by my fellow Mods.

On the same note, no Mod should execute a ban, mute, edit or delete without having first informed (or informed after the fact in time sensitive cases) the player being banned, muted, edited or deleted. It's been mentioned that I failed to address the issue of Mod transparency. Again, this was an oversight based upon my assuming the best of us. I would never implement a sanction without informing the player being disciplined. The closest I ever come is when I kick a player in the heat of a game. The kick is almost always prefaced by either a comment such as, "Hey spawnkiller, you're being a jagoff, stop or be kicked." a question such as, "Hey jagoff, are you going to stop spawnkilling or shall I kick you?" or a capsule summary of the situation, such as, "Jagoff."

I rarely mess with forum content. My overarching position on free speech and the responsibility of the individual to police himself/herself is well established here. I'm sure it's fair to say that almost all other Mods spend more time than I patrolling the forum. My hope is that any action taken by a Mod is taken with full disclosure to the poster being edited or deleted. But, as I said in my original post, there are lines over which nobody gets to step without my or a fellow Mod's completely justifiable slapintheface. I get that we aren't always the most popular people in Dogfight. I get that many people (myself included) are less than thrilled with authority figures. I get that some people with personal agendas need to learn to STFU. There are occasions when the latter needs to trump the formers.

My comments regarding mature aged players behaving immaturely were not targeted at you or at anyone other than those directly involved in the recent spate of foolish, incendiary threads and posts. You make the mistake of assuming an underlying, "This means you." What's underlying my post is, "You know who you are." A world of difference between the two intents. It's my understanding that most of the furor had to do with one player (abetted by one or two others) taking open, disrespectful shots at one Mod. (abetted by one or two others) So no, there was nothing of the blanket statement in my comments, merely a desire to pull up shy of naming names and an equal desire to discourage any further such petty assaults, by anyone. My interest was in addressing the common sense simplicity of knowing when you're intentionally stirring the pot and knowing what the repercussions of such an attention grab would almost certainly be, not in what does or does not factor into Moderator policy and certainly not in tarring everyone in Dogfight with the same brush.

--w--

Rick, I am more than a little embarrassed at the time and effort you invested in your response to my whinge. Your initial post was an olive branch, which I promptly used to fuel my own brazier of dissatisfaction. Your second post was a complete olive tree, which I couldn't chop small enough to burn! I think you have done a lot to calm things down. Thanks also to Brian and Manfred for their contributions (make them mods now!), but no thanks to Dalek for his opportunistic snipe (but I did like the music).

There's zero cause for embarrassment, Rob. I knew while composing my initial post that there would be holes in it. I was confident that they'd be filled. I'm not at all surprised that it was you who pointed them out, thanks. Anything here should be viewed as a collaborative effort, as always it's a pleasure collaborating with you, m'friend.

--w--

Ah shucks you guys.....sniffle sniffle..... Look at you!!! Acting like a couple of "Grown Ass Men"!!! Makes me proud!!!

Leadership traits are very hard to come by these days..... Well done men!