An open letter to the ZDoom community regarding drama

[Devianteist]

I would say to use a colored name system similar to how the mods are green, some people are blue, and others magenta, but I just listed off the reasons we couldn't do that.

Reason I would suggest this is that users who exercise "good" behavior would have brilliantly blue usernames or some other kind of blue. Blue often makes people think calmly and make better decisions for the long term.

Users who exercise "bad" behavior could be given red usernames. Usually red indicates aggressiveness or hostility. Seeing the color red often makes people avoid it, or heed whatever warning may be pasted on it (stop signs). Yellow could also work, as it is often associated with warnings and danger.

[Project Shadowcat]

Instead of showing on the user profile, have a "user was warned for this post" notice on the offending post itself. That shows A) moderators are actually doing something and B) "don't do this, kids".

This can be faked. We did this on the MFZ a long time ago, and we had a very serious problem with people faking that on purposely problematic posts to distract the moderators.

[Shadelight]

That used to be done... I dunno why ww and the other mods haven't been doing it lately.

It'd be nice if it were a forum mod instead of a thing WW or the rest of us would have to copy/paste every time.

EDIT: On second thought, no. I don't agree with ETTiNGRiNDER for the reasons Project Dark Fox stated.

[Trance]

Why are we discussing changes to moderation policy? That isn't the problem.

[Jaxxoon R]

What should be done to fix the problem, ye astigmacat?

What can one do?

[Matt]

Before that, though... is there a problem, what is the problem and is it worse than any reasonably foreseeable consequences of the fix?

I stand by this:

Fwiw, I myself am perfectly OK with the current status quo - compared to plenty of things I've seen online and off, the drama that started this thread is embarrassingly mild.

Yeah, like I said earlier---after witnessing the recent Reddit revolt, this place is a paradise among paradises.

While we do get our drama, and admittedly I don't hang out on a lot of forums anymore, from what I see on Facebook and Tumblr, and all the various schisms and controversies in the church (especially after this new SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, lol) it almost seems like this forum should be a model for others.

[Trance]

This forum is definitely not one with a model community. I frequent other message boards with people more grown-up and far less inclined to drama than ZDoom. This place is no Reddit, to be sure, but this thread wouldn't exist if there weren't issues that needed working out. The reason we've got drama is exactly the same reason that politics and religion is verboten on this forum: most people here can't bring themselves to be mature when they read something that pisses them off.

Are these issues going to lead to the community's demise? No. Are they, over time, going to lead to the departure of many more members who might have had a positive impact on ZDoom modding? Almost certainly.

What's the solution? Put simply, nearly all active elements of the community need to mature somewhat. Far easier said than done.

[wildweasel]

What's the solution? Put simply, nearly all active elements of the community need to mature somewhat. Far easier said than done.

Especially in regards to Certain People.

[Trance]

A whole lot of spats, major and minor, on this forum stem from two failings: failure to interpret correctly and refusal to respond amicably.

Lots of users here fail to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, or to think hard enough about the reasoning behind a post. Benefit of the doubt is an important component of healthy interaction, especially when dealing with disagreement. There are few genuine idiots in this community, and therefore there might be a good reason behind someone's opinion which seems to you at first to be stupid. It helps to stop before you reply and consider more carefully any potential reason someone posted something you disagree on. You might just come up with a reason that makes sense, and can discuss the subject on those terms. If not, the time spent doing that at least breaks up some of the urge to respond with a sarcastic remark or insult.

That's my advice on the first one. For the second one, well... be less of a dick. That should be all the advice one needs there.

[wildweasel]

For the second one, well... be less of a dick. That should be all the advice one needs there.

It's sad indeed that people actually have to be told this, sometimes...

[Big C]

I'm not so much concerned about the moderation here as much as two types of trouble users...

A) Barely-post-at-all accounts that give bad advice, bad feedback, bad posts, poor netiquette, and generally act like they barely know how to piss into the toilet instead of the floor, much less post constructively on a forum. Bonus points for if they request Brutal DooM support for something.

B) Long-timers that really should know better, and have demonstrated that while they may have had great programming teachers they don't have humility or manners. Or at the very least don't know how to keep kneejerk reactions to certain bugaboos in check.

...And these two types of trouble users keep cropping up, and it makes the forum not-fun to surf.

[ibm5155]

how ot fix the forum.
-Add a fixed warning limit, not a random magic number to hit and get banned (like 5 or 10)...
-Add a suspended mode when user reach that warning level, only allowing him to access the Development area or just the bugs and closed bugs area.
-let the action banned just be set manually, so if there's some problematic guy that should never come back, ban.
-expiration for warnings (like the each warning may be counted by 6 months or 12months) after that the guy lost the warning
-There's no need to show stars to show that you're a good user with warnings or without, just let the forum clear the way it's.
-suspended action is for everyone, so if graf, randi or every high level staff reach a certain warning level, they'll get suspended (so everyone will be treated like everyone else)
-just warn people that're going to quote someone if the quoted guy have a high warning level and if this quote will not create more warnings or if the quote is really needed)

about the warnings
- add 1 warning if it's just a stupid thing (example: posting "Nothing" over the what is the music that you re listening now)
- add 2 warnings if it's a more serious thing (threaten, bullying, offend others,...)
- add 3 warnings in worst cases (steal a mod, sharing ilegal stuff, convince people to commit suicide,...)

That's my sugestions from a 3 level warning guy , that's a good forum, and I hope It will stay without bad ibm's and just good ibm's

[Kostov]

randi reaching warnings, hah

The idea you demonstrated of tier 1 warnings seems quite odd to me for merely stupid things, but I will not stand against it.

[ibm5155]

randi reaching warnings, hah

The idea you demonstrated of tier 1 warnings seems quite odd to me for merely stupid things, but I will not stand against it.

I got the base as some of my warnings on zandronum, like posting "nothing" on the music thread and other stupid things, "stealing mods" (The author and his mod was dead for 5 years, no signal from him, and when I release it with fixed stuff since the wad that I had was broken he appear lol)....

The warnings levels was just an example, like 1 warning for simple things and 3 warnings for really bad things

[wildweasel]

how ot fix the forum.
-Add a fixed warning limit, not a random magic number to hit and get banned (like 5 or 10)...
[...]
about the warnings
- add 1 warning if it's just a stupid thing (example: posting "Nothing" over the what is the music that you re listening now)
- add 2 warnings if it's a more serious thing (threaten, bullying, offend others,...)
- add 3 warnings in worst cases (steal a mod, sharing ilegal stuff, convince people to commit suicide,...)

The problem with this...let's suppose the limit is 10 warn points. Imagine someone has been enough of a jerk to get three Tier 3 warnings, leaving them with 9 warn points out of 10. Maybe this person has the poor sense to bump a five-year-old mod thread asking if it's still being worked on. That bump, if warned, would result in them being banned. It's the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

-expiration for warnings (like the each warning may be counted by 6 months or 12months) after that the guy lost the warning

Warnings do (sort of) expire; I'm not clear on how long that takes, but despite warnings remaining on record, the actual displayed number in your profile does drop after a while. Again, though, that seems to be only visible to moderators.

-suspended action is for everyone, so if graf, randi or every high level staff reach a certain warning level, they'll get suspended (so everyone will be treated like everyone else)

Let's hope it never gets that far, but I'd be entirely willing to do that if it were necessary.

-just warn people that're going to quote someone if the quoted guy have a high warning level and if this quote will not create more warnings or if the quote is really needed)

That might be problematic. It's likely to create a sort of "persona non grata" effect, making it seem like certain people must never be spoken to. At that rate, why should they even remain on the forums?