[agrasyuk]

But in that example all was said that needed to be said on that topic,

I can't say I'm surprised by this reply. By all means feel free to close any conversation that you don't like to take place.
But how then can a forum be described as "open" when administration decides for members when they said enough? I don't see any offence, rudeness or anything improper in that conversation, I don't see it as concluded. I understand you would rather it to not take place altogether, but you cannot possibly know that nobody had anything else to add. You seriously don't see any contradiction here?

And sorry, no, I don't see how I am possibly confusing concept of open and free for All here .

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by agrasyuk

I can't say I'm surprised by this reply. By all means feel free to close any conversation that you don't like to take place.
But how then can a forum be described as "open" when administration decides for members when they said enough? I don't see any offence, rudeness or anything improper in that conversation, I don't see it as concluded. I understand you would rather it to not take place altogether, but you cannot possibly know that nobody had anything else to add. You seriously don't see any contradiction here?

And sorry, no, I don't see how I am possibly confusing concept of open and free for All here .

But you are reading into it once again, it wasnt closed because "I" or "ED" didnt like it, its because people were getting upset because there was a lot of confusion about what happened. Keeping that conversation open was doing no good for anyone, arguments were starting, incorrect theories were being developed, the thread had run its course.

What more did you need to come from that thread? We already know that:

1) Everyone likes the idea of the MiG 23
2) RAZBAM isnt doing it.

What else is needed? Why would RAZBAM like a thread in their section discussing a module they are not developing? I am trying to see your point here, but I am still missing it.

[Buzzles]

Regarding moderation, would it be possible to review the practice of fully deleting posts when the mod team have had to step in?

I can fully understand deleting a run of them if they've seriously disrupted the flow, but quite often it's just one or two posts. It's often a lot clearer what's been going on and what the mod team have had to do when they simply edit posts to be something like "Post removed due to Rule x.y violation --Mod name" and even with caveats like "User was suspended for this post" and done in a different colour too.

Seen it in other forums and it tends to make moderation seem a lot more open.

Just an idea to make moderation a bit more transparent.

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by Buzzles

Regarding moderation, would it be possible to review the practice of fully deleting posts when the mod team have had to step in?

I can fully understand deleting a run of them if they're seriously disrupted the flow, but quite often it's just one or two posts. It's often a lot clearer what's been going on and what the mod team have had to do when they simply edit posts to be something like "Post removed due to Rule x.y violation --Mod name" and even with caveats like "User was suspended for this post", and done in a different colour too.

Seen it in other forums and it tends to make moderation seem a lot more open.

Just an idea to make moderation a bit more transparent.

Actually, we have asked the webmaster to make it so deleted posts are now shown to all, so you can see a post was deleted an why. I dont want to share punishment to all, I dont think that is fair. We already show suspended people having an + by their name.

[Yurgon]

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

Actually, we have asked the webmaster to make it so deleted posts are now shown to all, so you can see a post was deleted an why.

Change seems to have taken effect already. That's a great idea, thanks for implementing it so quickly!

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by Yurgon

Change seems to have taken effect already. That's a great idea, thanks for implementing it so quickly!

Yes, we are hoping it will add a level of transparency to the forums, exactly what Buzzles suggested above. Its trial right now, so we will make sure it doesnt upset people seeing dead posts

[GeorgeLKMT]

Ad screenshots, fair enough, that's understandable.

Anyway, I'll bite into this:

Maybe it's a conflict of interest, considering it's my own thread (no better way to describe it), but what about this. It's the only example I can find quickly and that's not deleted.

Interesting and rule-abiding discussion about something that was relevant and the time (still is though) and got a lot of people interested. Got them interested so much that they were discussing it in threads not suited for such discussion, which was the reason for starting it.

Reason for closure: Moderator decided that ED is not going to do anything about it (the topic being discussed) even though the moderator is not ED itself, and the thread was discussing ED's policy. Maybe if the closing comment stated "I talked to ED and..." or was made by Wags himself...
But even then, isn't that precisely what agrasyuk's comment is talking about? Note that I'm not discussing the topic in that thread, but simply the reason for closure. How can we ensure friendly forum open to critical discussion when threads will be cherry picked and locked, based on how uncomfortable the topic is? I saw the similar thing happening with ED's F-18 "delay" slip-up. Granted, there were some nasty posts here and there, but the whole thing really boiled down to "everyone shut up and wait for the news (whenever that is)". There's a thin line between enforcing healthy discussion and altering its course.

Anyway, I'm hoping that the 2017, starting with this topic, will be the year of better communication and transparency from ED's side and that's including the moderation team. I can promise you that the people's concerns about "power-tripping mods", like you mentioned, are more than legit and it's not unheard of. Even simple power on an anonymous internet forum is enough for some. Luckily this is one of the better forums in that regard. And I can also promise you, that the people complaining are not always the ones who break the rules and just get salty about it, like some might think.

Wall of text, sorry!

[SiThSpAwN]

This brings up a good point. No I am not a paid ED employee, but you should be aware of two things.

1) I talk to Matt probably on a daily basis at any given time of day. Matt probably views the forum as much as anyone here, to think I could make a statement about ED on my own and assume its not what ED really agrees with is just not going to happen.

2) I am confident in saying that Matt trusts me not to make a statement I am unsure about, and that if I do make a statement, that I am using my brain, and if I am unsure, I am bugging him.

This goes for major moderation issues and such, Matt is very involved in this, its not just me and the mod team running amok.

As for the content of that thread, donations is simply not up for discussion right now. It had been stated that donations arent allowed for mods that use anything from DCS World, this is not greed, although come on, ED needs to make money, but this is also a quality insurance thing, we can go into that more if you need to.

So yes, we want discussions to happen here, but no, we dont want discussions on stuff that just isnt going to change, such as the MiG23 from RAZBAM and donations, all that will happen is people get all worked up about it, and it just wont change.

Who develops a module, and how people make money off of DCS World has to be left up to ED, that is not to say that I dont think there is a couple mods out there that do deserve to be rewarded, it has to be done through ED.

[GeorgeLKMT]

Originally Posted by agrasyuk

we can go into that more if you need to..

I wanted 6 months ago in that very thread and made a lot of points adressing various views either for, or against the topic. The thing that has upset me was the explanation felt kinda like stereotypical mom's saying "because I said so!". Discussion can be held until it can't is the exact thin line I was talking about. But that's irrelevant now.

Anyway, if we can take one thing from this, it's probably that you should be more clear with your statements or in cases like these, ED themselves should get involved (it takes 1 minute to write a short statement). Nobody can automatically assume that at any point, you're echoing ED's opinions and not just your own.

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by GeorgeLKMT

Nobody can automatically assume that at any point, you're echoing ED's opinions and not just your own.

That is what I am trying to make clear now, me, or any of the moderators wont make any statements for ED, unless its what ED wants. Why have a moderation team if you dont believe anything we say or do being in ED's best interest, or based on ED's company line. Just because maybe you dont like the reason or you dont think its good enough, doesnt mean that you need to hear it from Matt's account, I would rather he stay busy on Hornet documentation than moderation