what is worng with rpg.net these days

[zebaroth]

1st if this psot violates a rule on here i am sorry

what is worng with rpg.net these days the mods same to be ban happy and come down on the members for posting
and let threads that should not be talked about go on for way to long. point in case they said i was toriling for posting about
ideas for games sure i dont run games ( live in a city with 3 game stores and every one is pathfinder/D&D cazzy or into savage worlds and dont want to play anything else)
but none of my ideas were nasty. if they did not want me to reply to a non admin staff member in my own post they should have locked after they red text me.
also posting a thing about rebooting comic book vilians and asking others to pick a villain and give them a new origin. and doing the riddler as a game show host who got blamed for the show being
rigged by corrupt porducers who made up a fake charity for a episode to win the money for themselves. Rpg.net use to be a good site but the mods same to be durnk with power these days.
the have a infarction section were there post the warnings and bans as thophys. no other site i have posted on dose that it is like they are boasting about it.

[Aedilred]

the have a infarction section were there post the warnings and bans as thophys. no other site i have posted on dose that it is like they are boasting about it.

Regarding this point at least I don't think it's necessarily uncommon practice to have a sections where banned posts are moved and (not necessarily the same place) where warnings are recorded so that the mods have something to refer to in future, both to inform treatment of individual members and as a general guideline as to what constitutes a "problem post" - and also so that if one mod goes on a power trip the others get the chance to see what they're up to and fix the damage if necessary. It is unusual though for such a venue to be visible to regular users: they tend to be an extension of the mod-only forums and features that I'm sure pretty much every forum has.

Having said that though I'm not sure necessarily why such places should be mod-only. There is the "trophy" issue as you suggest and that cuts both ways: that such posts become evidence of victories not only (rather cheaply) for the mods but for troublesome posters, which may go some way to explaining it. But it is also pretty useful for well-intentioned posters to know what sort of posts are considered forum-unfriendly. No matter how apparently clear the rules, different forums have differing standards - which can shift over time - and if all posts that cross the line are deleted or scrubbed, members have no examples to learn from as to where the line is, which I think makes it more likely they'll end up breaking the rules themselves. So the approach used by rpg.net might just be down to a different moderating philosophy, one that might be unfamiliar but isn't necessarily invalid.

As to your other points, I'm not familiar enough with the forum to judge.

[Keltest]

Having said that though I'm not sure necessarily why such places should be mod-only. There is the "trophy" issue as you suggest and that cuts both ways: that such posts become evidence of victories not only (rather cheaply) for the mods but for troublesome posters, which may go some way to explaining it. But it is also pretty useful for well-intentioned posters to know what sort of posts are considered forum-unfriendly. No matter how apparently clear the rules, different forums have differing standards - which can shift over time - and if all posts that cross the line are deleted or scrubbed, members have no examples to learn from as to where the line is, which I think makes it more likely they'll end up breaking the rules themselves. So the approach used by rpg.net might just be down to a different moderating philosophy, one that might be unfamiliar but isn't necessarily invalid.

As to your other points, I'm not familiar enough with the forum to judge.

Its a privacy thing. Mods need to be able to see what posts have been moderated on account of it being relevant to their jobs, but if I get really angry at somebody and say something offensive and stupid, I don't want other random people who have no business looking at that stuff to be able to see every bad mistake ive made over the years.

[zebaroth]

Its a privacy thing. Mods need to be able to see what posts have been moderated on account of it being relevant to their jobs, but if I get really angry at somebody and say something offensive and stupid, I don't want other random people who have no business looking at that stuff to be able to see every bad mistake ive made over the years.

then if they need have it it should be in a privet section only they can access it is not something that should be seen by guests and members.

[Bohandas]

The net needs more /b/ style forums with no moderators

[Aedilred]

As a moderator myself on another forum, in times past I have many times had to field calls for greater transparency from the mod team: some posters want to be able to see behind the curtain, know when warnings and infractions are given out, be able to see how the mods make their decisions. I've seen calls even for the private mod discussion forum to be made visible to all members so they can be certain the rules aren't deliberately being applied prejudicially. We didn't bend to such concerns but we nevertheless do tend to leave rule-breaking posts in place unless they are unambiguously offensive or put the forum at risk of legal action and just put a "mod voice" note and if necessary lock the thread; our approach is, broadly speaking, that it's better to lock posts than to delete them - or preferably, identify conversations which might get out of hand and nudge them back in the right direction rather than waiting for them to blow up and then wading in with warnings and bans, etc. Of course, that's a relatively small forum compared to rpg.net which makes it easier to moderate "proactively".

As a "private" member, I often find myself wishing to get more resolution on matters and be better informed on application of the rules. It's much easier to judge what is and what isn't acceptable if you can see what has been deemed unacceptable and why. If a thread you'd thought innocuous was locked, it's nice to know why it was locked, and how seriously the apparent offences are perceived: is it nothing to worry about, or are you at risk of getting an infraction should you stray into such territory in future, and how is such territory identified? Knowing how lock-happy the mods are makes it easier to decide whether it's really the forum for you. And it makes it much easier to hold mods to account if they're using their powers to bully individual posters, which can and does happen. And so on.

Like I say, it's a different moderating philosophy than the one, say, here. But I don't think it's necessarily an invalid one, just a different and less common one than that you might be used to.

[zebaroth]

As a moderator myself on another forum, in times past I have many times had to field calls for greater transparency from the mod team: some posters want to be able to see behind the curtain, know when warnings and infractions are given out, be able to see how the mods make their decisions. I've seen calls even for the private mod discussion forum to be made visible to all members so they can be certain the rules aren't deliberately being applied prejudicially. We didn't bend to such concerns but we nevertheless do tend to leave rule-breaking posts in place unless they are unambiguously offensive or put the forum at risk of legal action and just put a "mod voice" note and if necessary lock the thread; our approach is, broadly speaking, that it's better to lock posts than to delete them - or preferably, identify conversations which might get out of hand and nudge them back in the right direction rather than waiting for them to blow up and then wading in with warnings and bans, etc. Of course, that's a relatively small forum compared to rpg.net which makes it easier to moderate "proactively".

As a "private" member, I often find myself wishing to get more resolution on matters and be better informed on application of the rules. It's much easier to judge what is and what isn't acceptable if you can see what has been deemed unacceptable and why. If a thread you'd thought innocuous was locked, it's nice to know why it was locked, and how seriously the apparent offences are perceived: is it nothing to worry about, or are you at risk of getting an infraction should you stray into such territory in future, and how is such territory identified? Knowing how lock-happy the mods are makes it easier to decide whether it's really the forum for you. And it makes it much easier to hold mods to account if they're using their powers to bully individual posters, which can and does happen. And so on.

Like I say, it's a different moderating philosophy than the one, say, here. But I don't think it's necessarily an invalid one, just a different and less common one than that you might be used to.

they don't have to post the infarction in ones post for some one im to them that is better. i think 5 posts in 2 months on a site is not to many as one of rpg.nets mods said i had posted over a dozen i had not 5 is far from a dozen

[Aedilred]

they don't have to post the infarction in ones post for some one im to them that is better. i think 5 posts in 2 months on a site is not to many as one of rpg.nets mods said i had posted over a dozen i had not 5 is far from a dozen

As I say, it's a matter of opinion. Just because you disagree with the policy doesn't make it inherently invalid. I can't comment on any specifics to do with your post count or whatever for obvious reasons.

As a general aside, though, you might want to take a bit more time checking spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. of your posts, because on the evidence of this thread they sometimes border on the unintelligible. I imagine that could be a cause of legitimate frustration to moderators.

[Fri]

Also, external baggage is specifically against the rules, just saying.

[Friv]

Hey, zeb!

I'm not a mod at rpg.net, or anything, but I am a poster there and I saw your posts. So if you don't mind (and I don't think it's against forum rules here to discuss another forum) I can give you my thoughts.

The first one is that rpg.net is a larger forum than GiantITP, activity-wise - it's about half again the total posting rate and size. It also deliberately tries to be a safe place for gamers, which gets it targeted by certain groups on a semi-regular basis. Finally, there was a period when modding at rpg.net was basically nonexistent, during which a lot of users were driven off. The result of all of these things is a much more hands-on moderator approach, especially when it comes to short-term bans. A ban of one or three days is pretty common for people who break the forum rules, as a sort of "cooling off" period for them to look over the rules and figure out how to do things differently next time.

The infraction forum exists for two reasons - to help people look at how the rules are enforced, and to create moderator accountability. The mods don't always agree on things, and infractions are sometimes reversed or downgraded on appeal or discussion. If the infraction forum was entirely private, no one would know how much the mods reply to or whether they were playing fair.

When I look at the problems that you had - it's true that you only posted ten threads in a month that were problematic, rather than the 'literally dozens' that you were accused of. On the other hand, every three days you were posting a new thread and then wandering off. At this point, you weren't given a ban - a mod gave you a warning to stop doing that specific thing. If you'd listened, gone back, and continued discussion in those threads, that would have been the end of it. If you'd opened up a polite conversation behind the scenes, you might have been able to talk to them.

But instead you replied directly to mod text in the thread, opening with the line "i know repling to red text is worng but i am dooing it any way".

Here's the thing. There is no well-run forum in which saying "I know I'm breaking the rules but I'm doing it anyway" is going to end well for you. It just won't. They're dealing with a lot of people, a lot of the time, and your good intentions don't really matter if you're breaking the rules (I took a minor ban here on GitP once for a similar mistake). So yeah, a mod told you to take three days off.

And you came back, and then you immediately created another new thread, in the exact style of the ones you'd been asked not to do.

If you'd spent a week or two responding to several of your older threads, and then done it? Probably would have been fine. But from an outside perspective, especially with "deliberately broke forum rules" sitting on your infraction history less than a week earlier, it probably looked a lot like you were deliberately needling the staff.

Maybe you can try a private mod appeal, to the mod appeal email address?

*EDIT*

Also, external baggage is specifically against the rules, just saying.

I don't think this qualifies as "external baggage"; zebaroth isn't going after specific people, just feeling kind of hurt about board culture. If the mods disagree, of course, I'm happy to redact my post.

[zebaroth]

Hey, zeb!

I'm not a mod at rpg.net, or anything, but I am a poster there and I saw your posts. So if you don't mind (and I don't think it's against forum rules here to discuss another forum) I can give you my thoughts.

The first one is that rpg.net is a larger forum than GiantITP, activity-wise - it's about half again the total posting rate and size. It also deliberately tries to be a safe place for gamers, which gets it targeted by certain groups on a semi-regular basis. Finally, there was a period when modding at rpg.net was basically nonexistent, during which a lot of users were driven off. The result of all of these things is a much more hands-on moderator approach, especially when it comes to short-term bans. A ban of one or three days is pretty common for people who break the forum rules, as a sort of "cooling off" period for them to look over the rules and figure out how to do things differently next time.

The infraction forum exists for two reasons - to help people look at how the rules are enforced, and to create moderator accountability. The mods don't always agree on things, and infractions are sometimes reversed or downgraded on appeal or discussion. If the infraction forum was entirely private, no one would know how much the mods reply to or whether they were playing fair.

When I look at the problems that you had - it's true that you only posted ten threads in a month that were problematic, rather than the 'literally dozens' that you were accused of. On the other hand, every three days you were posting a new thread and then wandering off. At this point, you weren't given a ban - a mod gave you a warning to stop doing that specific thing. If you'd listened, gone back, and continued discussion in those threads, that would have been the end of it. If you'd opened up a polite conversation behind the scenes, you might have been able to talk to them.

But instead you replied directly to mod text in the thread, opening with the line "i know repling to red text is worng but i am dooing it any way".

Here's the thing. There is no well-run forum in which saying "I know I'm breaking the rules but I'm doing it anyway" is going to end well for you. It just won't. They're dealing with a lot of people, a lot of the time, and your good intentions don't really matter if you're breaking the rules (I took a minor ban here on GitP once for a similar mistake). So yeah, a mod told you to take three days off.

And you came back, and then you immediately created another new thread, in the exact style of the ones you'd been asked not to do.

If you'd spent a week or two responding to several of your older threads, and then done it? Probably would have been fine. But from an outside perspective, especially with "deliberately broke forum rules" sitting on your infraction history less than a week earlier, it probably looked a lot like you were deliberately needling the staff.

Maybe you can try a private mod appeal, to the mod appeal email address?

*EDIT*



I don't think this qualifies as "external baggage"; zebaroth isn't going after specific people, just feeling kind of hurt about board culture. If the mods disagree, of course, I'm happy to redact my post.

i did reply to many posts i checked them evrey day( i post on a few forums on the net all under the same name ) but they get pushed back down the line so it is hard to keep track of them. then there was the ones no one commented on how can i reply to no one. as for spelling and grhamer i wasted my youth thought i had all the time to do it later now i am 33 and am paying for my stupidity. and as you put it about no mods at all i know all to well what that can be like. i have played a zombie mmorpg that is nothing but trolls and hackers/chetaers and no one mods any thing on it or it's forums. i think i have what i need now as i see the other side of coin think you all for helping me see it