Jump to content

Inconsistent Forum Moderation?


Flagrum

Recommended Posts

At the start of May, the forum rule 1.16 was considerably tightened up so that it is now also forbidden to talk about content, which is covered in documents that are subject to rule 1.16.

 

My understanding is, that the change of the rule is presumed to be retroactively active. And yet, there are postings that are not moderated at all in this regard - older postings, but also postings made after the change. Of the postings, that were moderated, the moderation does not neccessarily adhere to the new wording of rule 1.16. For example, some people where banned, others were not, perma warnings where handed out or not at all.

 

The way, the change of the rule is communicated to the community is also obscure by itself. There are currently several different wordings online, which were confusingly published at different dates during the last two weeks:

- forum rules: currently, the russian translation reads the old text (referencing docs not forbidden, no 20% perma warning, no ban) while the english translation mentions since early may a ban and a 20% warning, but without "perma"

- forum header note was recently updated to state a 20% perma warning, ban and possible future consequences

 

Not to mention that punishments were already applied while everywhere the original wording was still in place.

 

Why is this process so highly intransparent and arbitrary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The english forum rule is currently as followed:

1.16 Posting images, file links, file sharing links, copying and pasting information, or referencing of military aircraft and related equipment documents, in any way, newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed, a 20% warning and 1-week suspension will be issued.
It does not say anything about perma bans? :huh:

 

I'm also curious about specific examples of moderators banning people because of this rule, as well as not punishing people that have broken that rule in your opinion? I've only seen messages being deleted that contained modern military manuals.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

https://forums.eagle.ru/announcement.php?f=63

 

rules page needs updating, here is an update

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright then, but still, as long as you don't post military documents (or link them or post their content) that are newer than 1980, you have no reason to worry.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The english forum rule is currently as followed:

It does not say anything about perma bans?

Not perma-ban - it is about the 20% warning that will expire "never". And that is not mentioned there, but only here: https://forums.eagle.ru/announcement.php?f=437 or here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144679

And that is exactly one of my criticisms: the wording of 1.16 at the Forum Rules was changed around May 4th/5th/or so, the updated postings I linked to were updated yesterday or the day before yesterday.

 

And yet, people were handed out 20% "never expire" warnings and bans, even before the very first update of rule 1.16. Which one can not defer from reading the Forum Warning Guidelines, where a 20% warning is supposted to last 3 months and bans start at a total warning count of 40&. I find that highly arbitrary.

 

I'm also curious about specific examples of moderators banning people because of this rule, as well as not punishing people that have broken that rule in your opinion? I've only seen messages being deleted that contained modern military manuals.

 

These are the cases I meant. You will find a couple of postings that are deleted because of "Rule 1.16". They are moderated and the result should be a 20% perma warning and a one week ban - according to the new wording of 1.16. And yet, the comunity members were happily active after their 1.16 violation. No ban. Arbitrary again.

 

Alright then, but still, as long as you don't post military documents (or link them or post their content) that are newer than 1980, you have no reason to worry.

 

No, that is incorrect. The change of rule 1.16 means, that it is now forbidden to just reference such documents. I.e. you must not state the document title as reference when discussing topics that are covered in that document. This is a new dimension of rule 1.16.

 

"This should be so and so - just see NATOPS blahblahblah" can get you in trouble now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dunno why you even struggle tbh lmao you think people actually read the manuals that you refer them to?

 

anyone who reads manuals has already found and read them

 

Lol yeah, I know I always rush out to the interwebz searching for those ID-10T forms people reference

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dunno why you even struggle tbh lmao you think people actually read the manuals that you refer them to?

 

anyone who reads manuals has already found and read them

 

Yeah, riiight?? rEaDiNg - lol, NERDS!

 

Uhm, up until recently it was common practice on these forums, that bug reports were considered decent, if they were based on facts instead of opinions or "feelings". Remember? Such documents, as some sort of "primary source", were a good tool to archieve that. That way, all participants of a bug report were on the same, objective, level and devs could verify the findings by being quickly able to find their own material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since ED develops their modules with publicly available sources (as mentioned by Wags many times), why can't forum users refer to these exact sources for bug reports as well then? There's no need to cite or refer to documents that go against ED's forum rules in the first place...

PC: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X | MSI Suprim GeForce 3090 TI | ASUS Prime X570-P | 128GB DDR4 3600 RAM | 2TB Samsung 870 EVO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit

Gear: HP Reverb G2 | JetPad FSE | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.III w/ MCG Ultimate

 

VKBNA_LOGO_SM.png

VKBcontrollers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Just to be clear, nothing is permanent, yes we have perma warnings and perma bans, but after a long term of not getting in trouble, its as simple as PMing an ED moderator, and asking for them to be removed.

 

A permanent warning is used in cases where the warning is deemed to be serious enough to stick around for a while.

 

We have a rule and warning guidelines, but we will always use our best judgement when handing them out, another side of this being we can remove many 1.1 and 1.2 posts or OT posts even without giving any warnings. The forum is a privilege, not a right, and with things like 1.16 that can impact ED as a business, we will enforce as we need to as things change.

 

Also, warning levels are not visible to other users, only ED and you.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I acknowledge and appreciate that the rules are not set in stone and that there is some margin of discretion. But that is not what I am complaining about. Instead, there are moderator decisions, which have left the "corridor of discretion", which the Forum Rules and Forum Warning Guidelines have around them.

 

In an effort to be more transparent and consistent in how forum warnings and posting suspensions are issued, we are starting new guidelines today. We hope that this will remove any mystery on this subject.

 

Most of all, we want them to be fair, clear and accountable.

 

On one hand, we have rules that were interpreted in a substancial wider sense than they were documented and the resulting penalties, in their severity, were also not explainable by what was published before. Then on the other hand, there are postings that were just deleted, but no further penalties were applied - even after the tightened up rules have been communicated eventually.

 

This is not best judgement, this is arbitrariness. With this approach to moderation, Wags' expressed goals were clearly missed. By a long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

We stressed rule 1.16 as much as we could, numerous warnings were handed out without warning points or suspensions, we even made a forum announcement about it but many continued to ignore them while others helped by reporting them. Once we started coming down hard, they have slown down considerably. Considering what is at stake with some of the info being through around, enforcement of this rule will stand, and continue as needed.

 

Your signature image shows how seriously you are not taking this.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We stressed rule 1.16 as much as we could [...]

 

I believe the point here is that rule 1.16 was changed, repeatedly, and offenses based on the updated rule were handled in a "coming down hard" way, before people had a fair chance to realize what those changes meant. I believe in the particular case this thread is about, the penalty was dealt even before the rules were updated anywhere.

 

It's only now that the rule implies that even mentioning the name of a document is prohibited. That was not the case just a few weeks ago.

 

And even now, weeks after the "Announcement: Rule 1.16 follow up **Updated**" started to show up in some places, the wording of the rule under https://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en doesn't fully reflect what that announcement reads. Not to mention that other languages of the rules are even more outdated.

 

Another problem is that "coming down hard" seems to have been applied arbitrarily.

 

This might be a good place to say "Sorry guys, we might have overreacted a bit. Anyone with a permanent warning because of rule 1.16 in the last few days, please contact us and we'll review the case".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

The nature of the rule has not changed since it started, we don't want any of these documents shared on the forums in any way. The only changes have been to spell it out more for some who have tried getting around the rule in creative ways.

 

If you think you have been wrongly affected by this, you can always PM me, but with 1.16, there is just no good excuse at this point, as I said, most if not all the people who have received warnings, had posts deleted or been involved in threads with posts that have been deleted without warnings previously, as we tried to do it without punishment at first. The fact that we had to start handing out warning points and suspensions only mean people chose to continue to do so.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rules page still needs to be updated. The russian version of the 1.16 rule does not say anything about warnings or even bans, unlike the english version does. It just says messages will be deleted.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/announcement.php?f=63

 

rules page needs updating, here is an update


Edited by QuiGon
Fixed Typo

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

The Russian side is already requested to be changed, but as we all seem to do well with English, that isn't a valid point in what is being discussed here. Nothing is changing in how 1.16 is being handled, we told this to OP in PMs, in tickets, and when his buddies PM'd as well. That's final.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nature of the rule has not changed since it started [...]

 

Come again?!

 

1.16 Posting images, file links, and file sharing links of military aircraft documents newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed.

 

1.16 Posting images, file links, file sharing links, copying and pasting information, or referencing of military aircraft and related equipment documents, in any way, newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed, a 20% warning and 1-week suspension will be issued.

 

1.16 violations will first be 20% perma warning, 1 week off. A second violation will be another 20% perma and one month off. A third violation will be 100% warning and 1 year off. After the 1 year, your 100% warning will remain intact, and any further violations will result in a permanent ban on these forums.

 

That highlighted part is a substantial change.

 

As I understand it, even the name of a document now falls under this rule. That was not the case when the rule was first put in place. Subsequently, handing out penalties based on the updated nature of the rule, and then saying everyone on the forum had ample warning, that's... inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but as we all seem to do well with English, that isn't a valid point in what is being discussed here.

That wasn't my intent. I just wanted to highlight an inconsistency that might be the reason for some of this confusion :)

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We stressed rule 1.16 as much as we could, numerous warnings were handed out without warning points or suspensions, we even made a forum announcement about it but many continued to ignore them while others helped by reporting them. Once we started coming down hard, they have slown down considerably. Considering what is at stake with some of the info being through around, enforcement of this rule will stand, and continue as needed.

 

Your signature image shows how seriously you are not taking this.

 

Oh, I am taking this very serious, but you are veering off-topic here or there is a stark a difference in perception here. You keep stressing, how important rule 1.16 is, but I am not even arguing against the existence or enforcement of the rule as such!

 

It is about HOW enforcement of the rule 1.16 is done. There is a difference in quality when

a) linking to a downloadable document,

b) posting hardcopies or copy&pasting content, or

c) stating a document title.

 

The difference is, one gives direct access to the content of the document and the other is merely acknowledging that such a document exists. These are very different ways of how one could handle such documents and only one of them was subject to rule 1.16 in the beginning.

 

Based on that, how can one be expected to deduce the other way to be "obviously" being implied in the rule as well?

 

And furthermore, when eventually both ways were condensed into the new rule 1.16, you use your best judgement to come down hard on violators of the "a document exists"-faction and, within hours, "direct access granter" get a just a slight rap on their knuckles in form of a deleted posting.

 

I can not understand how this can not be seen as arbitrary and random. I would have thought, given the severity of the whole document sharing issue, the necessity of explicit and clear communication of what is allowed and what is not, should have been of utmost importance. That would be at least a better way to make sure, that "people are getting it" than "coming down hard" on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

I am sorry you are just making this about you, but unfortunately this was a very fluid and organic matter, its obvious if you paid attention to the news item that hit a short time ago that we need to make sure anyone visiting these forums knows we are doing our best to make sure we are playing by the rules. You have a 20% warning, and has a short suspension, I really don't get all the angst, but at any rate, this has been answered for you a number of times, and it won't change. As I said, if you stay clean for 6 months or so, shoot me a PM and we can remove the warning. I don't have anything else to say on this.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...