13 replies to this topic

[Releasethe Krakken]

This is a technical discussion about a game feature not a discussion about poor moderation.  Please keep your replies on topic.

 

I recently picked up this quite irksome bug/ failed programming feature.

 

Your rules clearly states:

 

Insults

There is a distinction between disagreements and insults. Ironic content and propaganda will not be considered as an attempt to insult other citizens.

Friendly banter will not be taken under consideration on reports by third parties. The person at which the words are addressed should report the content if he/she feels insulted.

 

Now the problem is as follow: anyone can report you for insults.  Clearly that was not the intention of the rule as it says "the person at which the words is addressed".  

 

Here lies the crux of the problem .  how do i as programmer make certain the person reporting is the person insulted.

Lets analyze our current system:

 

1. Any person can report any comment/article for any reason and we presume his name is captures and tied to the log.

Lets go through a few scenarios:

1. The person replies to a original commenter.  He is in this scenario commenter N where N denotes a number.

 

Clearly his comments would be addressed at a person in the "thread"  .  Therefore its easy any person above him in the thread can report him for "insults'"  That is fine.  in the report there must be stated person X  reported you for insults.  

 

Why its easy you clearly state "the person AT WHICH THE WORDS ARE ADDRESSED..  I have now a case where this person says but I didnt report you.  So from the start we state this in the report .  In any rule making setup a person cannot be expected to defend himself against a nameless person.  you say you addressed these words at this person to insult him.  But in your case you just say "insults"  .  Leaving the gambit open for a player like Daghdha who sits on the Irish boards all day and report Irish players for rule breaks.

 

If you state person X reported you .  Then the person can argue I was not reffering to him and show some proof of this.

 

2.  the insulter is the first commenter in the comment.  Clearly his insult must refer to the OP in this case or a person named in his thread.  Failing this and even without this again the reported should be mentioned even if only on request.  I checked this system and reported a person for insulting persons in other countries successfully.  Clearly this indicate the system is not working properly.

 

So how do we implement it.  When you report a person for an insult a pop up states:  You are reporting player X for insults that is addressed to you.  For sake of fairness your name will be disclosed to him and you be punished if your not the person that is the subject of the insult.  Do you want to proceed: yes/no.

 

Ok that is just my thoughts.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gucio]

I've read through your post twice, and I still don't see where the problem is.

[Releasethe Krakken]

I've read through your post twice, and I still don't see where the problem is.

 

I would say that proofs the problem.  The rules says only the person that is insulted may report it. Or it is implied anyway.  So atm it happens that third parties is reporting "insults".  Since the test is a subjective one " Do I that read the words directed at me feel insulted"  this is clearly not correct and you handling these reports proof your corrupt/incompetent/biased against the person being reported.

 

The fact that a person whom I allegedly insulted says he did not report me proofs your corrupt.

 

Edited by Releasethe Krakken, 05 June 2014 - 04:42 PM.

[MaartenW]

The moderator handling your case must have considered the content you posted offensive, since it is written in the form of an insult the moderator has selected the insults penalty reason. If it makes you feel any better we can change it from insults to flaming, the applied penalties are identical however so nothing will change.

 

And because I feel another lecture on our own rules coming up;

 

This page further elaborates the eRepublik Laws. This is not an exclusive or exhaustive list, it is an insight on how the rules are interpreted.

 

Flaming includes, but is not limited to, the following cases:

 

We don't ask any rocket science from you, we just ask of you to not post any offensive content and if you can't see that the thing you wrote was offensive then I don't see the point discussing this with you...

[Releasethe Krakken]

but you got it wrong anyway.  you made a decision live with it.  this is like a guy being  accused of stealing at a certain store  but there is no information about what he stole.  So he goes to the store and the owner say.  But nothing was stolen from me and I was not at the police.  

 

So after a while his case comes before a judge and so the judge says oh someone else saw you putting an item in the your pockets and left to report it to the police  before seeing you leave the place but hey you know what the shop ownerr did say there was a window broken down there a day afterwards.  So I suggest we just keep this conviction because you know we dont really care about being right what we care about is you being punished.

 

You cant jump the rules .  Discussing intelligence as a scientific fact and the old definitions that existed in our times which now grew outdated is in now way even insulting or vulgarities.  Justice mustnt just be done it  must seen to be done.  Meaning the correctness of your procedures how fair it is and you now are trying to jump the ship and come from another angle doesnt mean your this really good debater .  Because you might be it just means you know s* all about the law, about administrative procedures, about judicial fairness and about any box we need to check in the checklist for what a moderator must be.  In short son you failed.   There is no ifs and buts there is no maybes you made a rule now stuck with your rule look at the facts and then make the correct decision based on the facts the defences that exist and what must be proven.  Simple as that.  Vulgarities isnt a competent verdict on insults as the one is subjective to the "victim" the other one dont even need a victim.  Assault is a competent verdict on murder and just as well culpable homicide.  However fraud wouldnt be.  Simple as that.  No need for lectures.  Also your comic shows that you have a generally negative opinion of people.  In most cases the virus would say lol, voted 07 and such sentimental crap.   Anyway MaartenW I guess teacher was very impressed with your CV.  You are not even close to a good moderator imo and I just happen to know more that you.

 

Lol I will laugh the day when your falsely accused of a crime and the people defending you and judging you has this kind of attitude.  Or probably the guy defending you wont tell you about the guy judging you';s generally faulty interpretations.  That is the great sadness in people like you .  People know your wrong and you know your wrong but you have to stuck to your definition.

 

Now this wasnt even about moderation if you read the earlier post you would see it.  It was about programming a feature correctly.  To comply with your rules.  You will know of your programming design days that you were taught to take notice of the "restraints " applicable to your program.  Therefore you and the company you represent fail on so many levels.

 

And I can see why this is because you dont just keep it simple.  As always whatever the player says he must be ignored and then punished.  And the other moderators pick up on this .  And basically none of you can truly deliver a competent decision.

 

You see the problem is that there is something called administrative law that says look at the rules of the game and then judges it for administrative fairness. The problem is your not .  Meaning sooner or later you will perma ban someone and he will drag your companies ass in front of a court and then you will have to explain all your jokes and incorrect verdicts.  And the judge sitting there will be a serious man a man that has sat in countless cases a man who doesnt allow unfair procedures etc and incorrect verdics.  And after a few days and after that players cost ran into the thousand lets say probably 20000 euro and he will make a ruling.  And you see not only will your name take a massive beating but even you might just tackle the incorrect issue lets say racism and you will pay every cent that your mr bonte made in all of his ytears and that would be the end of your company.  but hey your just an unpaid volunteer so why do you need to be fair or correct. m right for what reason do you need to be correct your not paid

 

Just get it right meaning your program.  There is something like being a professional and a professional never allow mistakes to foster in his company.  Also a professional acts professionally.  Moderation is usually your companies only contact with your customer the person that spends money on your game.  His money that he works hard for.  You saying but it may have been for another reason is extremely unprofessional.  And generally your moderation doesnt make much more sense.  

 

The moderator handling your case must have considered the content you posted offensive, since it is written in the form of an insult the moderator has selected the insults penalty reason. If it makes you feel any better we can change it from insults to flaming, the applied penalties are identical however so nothing will change.

 

And because I feel another lecture on our own rules coming up;

 

We don't ask any rocket science from you, we just ask of you to not post any offensive content and if you can't see that the thing you wrote was offensive then I don't see the point discussing this with you...

Edited by Releasethe Krakken, 05 June 2014 - 10:32 PM.

[Flaco Jimenez]

Someone needs a nap. 

[Releasethe Krakken]

Someone needs a nap. 

your impotent rage is useless here go play with the other kids.

[Flaco Jimenez]

No wonder Plato hates you. 

[Releasethe Krakken]

this is so typical.  happens the whole time in the tickets as well.  you just argue a matter on an intelligent level requiring higher "legal" whatever skills and the mods run for the hills.

 

amateur hour I guess.

[Flaco Jimenez]

Lets apply a life lesson. 

 

When discussing a problem with others do we...

 

A. Insult them and apply ranting walls of text. 

 

B. Use basic common courtesy and simple interpersonal skills to achieve the desired result. 

 

 

You be the judge. 

Edited by Flaco Jimenez, 09 June 2014 - 05:10 PM.

[Releasethe Krakken]

Lets apply a life lesson. 

 

When discussing a problem with others do we...

 

A. Insult them and apply ranting walls of text. 

 

B. Use basic common courtesy and simple interpersonal skills to achieve the desired result. 

 

 

You be the judge. 

what is option c ,  actually best results are obtained here by a wall of insults and then a question.

[Flaco Jimenez]

C. Fail hard and rant more. 

[MaartenW]

Your metaphors are all wrong, I think this is a better one;

 

You are at a bar you and your friend are both getting drunk and at some point your friend makes a joke meant to piss you off and you forcefully punch him on the chest sending him to the ground and he just lays laughing there. The bouncer (a big dumb guy who is there to make sure there is no violence and troublemakers are kicked out) picks you up and throws you out while saying "you know the rules pale, no fighting". The next day you show up with a dictionary where you are pointing with your finger at the definition of 'fighting' "Look look you didn't have the right to throw me out because it is not fighting if he doesn't fight back." 

[Releasethe Krakken]

inchworm comes from the woody allan movie whatever works where the lead played by larry david refers to people as inchworms instead of the word stupid   in the movie david is a very pessimistic arrogant  but highly intelligent person he teaches chess to kindergarten  children and then refer to them as inchworms if they make basic mistakes.

 

this is just a type of role playing where one boasts your own accomplishments and then minimize your opponents.  Usually accompanied with a lot of mock arrogance .  Its a type of humor that I role play to relief stress and relax.  Its basically overacting at the extreme.  Not really trolling.  Imo nobody can get hurt by being called an inchworm and yes never look at the urbandictionary definition (they are obsessed with sex).  andy kaufmann developed a similar charachter called obnoxious guy who was this elvis type singer but lurching around and pissing people off.

 

so i cant still see how this is an insult worthy of a content ban.  especially since the internet isn't meant for overly sensitive people.  and like i mentioned this is a planned action where every 1 of my comments is reported on command of a dirty ban evading multi