Inconsistent Forum Moderation? - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-14-2019, 11:30 PM   #1
Flagrum
Veteran
 
Flagrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: gulag
Posts: 6,148
Default Inconsistent Forum Moderation?

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?
__________________
Flagrum is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:01 AM   #2
QuiGon
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 9,625
Default

The english forum rule is currently as followed:
Quote:
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?

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 i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + Windows 10 64Bit

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

QuiGon is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:58 AM   #3
BIGNEWY
Senior
 
BIGNEWY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 14,850
Default

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

rules page needs updating, here is an update
__________________
Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA PALIT 1080 8GB, INTEL i7 4790K @4.4 GHz( Cooled by H100i ), 32GB DDR3 @1866 , Asus Z97-AR, TM Warthog, Jet provost rudder pedals, DELL Visor WMR
Please note I am no longer a volunteer for ED, my views are my own
BIGNEWY is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:17 AM   #4
QuiGon
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 9,625
Default

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 i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + Windows 10 64Bit

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

QuiGon is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:32 PM   #5
Flagrum
Veteran
 
Flagrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: gulag
Posts: 6,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuiGon View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuiGon View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuiGon View Post
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.
__________________
Flagrum is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:11 PM   #6
probad
Senior Member
 
probad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,067
Default

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
__________________
hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL
probad is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 01:06 AM   #7
zhukov032186
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Posts: 1,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by probad View Post
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
__________________
Zhukov attacks *FORUM USER* with Legendary Trollsword!
*FORUM USER* Constitution save roll.... Fail!
*FORUM USER* afflicted with ''Hurt Feelz'', -1 Concentration for two rounds
zhukov032186 is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:35 PM   #8
Flagrum
Veteran
 
Flagrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: gulag
Posts: 6,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by probad View Post
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.
__________________
Flagrum is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:51 PM   #9
rrohde
Veteran
 
rrohde's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Oklahoma is OK
Posts: 4,021
Default

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: Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz @ 5.1GHz | MSI GTX 1080 TI | ASUS Maximus IX Hero | 32GB DDR4 RAM | 512GB Samsung 850 PRO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit | Glear: Samsung Odyssey+ | Jetseat 908 | Monstertech MTX Sim Rig | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.II w/ MCG PRO




rrohde is offline  
Old 05-19-2019, 06:42 PM   #10
NineLine
Community Manager
 
NineLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 23,406
Default

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.
__________________
Nick Grey - "I have had the privilege of flying most marks of Spit, the I, V, IX, XIV, XIX and enjoyed working with Eagle to make this simulation of the IX the 'mutt's nuts'."
Artist formerly known as SiThSpAwN
Forum RulesForum Rules Guidelines
ED Facebook PageED YouTube PageWags YouTubeMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine #0440
**How to Report a Bug**
NineLine is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:45 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.