AnandTech Forum Guidelines

[olds]

Originally posted by: Nik
...cries like a 4 year old girl...

Uh Nik. Derek is not a Mod.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Nik
...cries like a 4 year old girl...

Uh Nik. Derek is not a Mod.

I asked a simple question, Oldsmobrat.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Nik
...cries like a 4 year old girl...

Uh Nik. Derek is not a Mod.

I asked a simple question, Oldsmobrat.

8/10 for originality.

 

[Nik]

:heart:

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Nik
blah, blah, blah...

What did Derek say when you sent him a PM or emailed him?

You can PM the mail mod account, it will be discussed amongst all of us. Don't worry, we give each other as much crap as you guys give us and we'll definitely call a mod out if they are in the wrong.

Considering past circumstances, I have absolutely no faith that an issue I raise via PM or email or anything other than a direct PM to Derek will actually be intercepted by someone other than the mod I may be having an issue with. However, we can't email Derek per rule #12. This just completely defeats the purpose.

If members have a problem with senior moderators, there's no real way we can go to someone without them getting involved. There's no guarantee that the issue will be resolved.

Will we get banned if we PM Derek with issues that would otherwise get us banned for posting in PFI about it? I hate the idea that we can't really even talk about the real issues at hand in PFI even though that's what it's for without the risk of someone sweeping the issue under the rug and banning us for "mod callout" which is the biggest undefined all-encompansing ban card ever.

This is my biggest and only real concern.

It will be brought to their attention, yes. But that does not mean everything is swept under the carpet.

The reason we are heavy handed with mod callouts is they serve no purpose other than to bad mouth us. If you truly have an issue, there is no need to bad mouth us and a simple PM/email will get the issue discussed.

If there is a constant problem, Derek is "the boss" and he will handle everything that we screw up on.

We are volunteers, if you want a timely response, feel free to put a bribe in your PM when sent. Otherwise we'll get to it as we can. Otherwise, we have bigger things to deal with on a daily basis other than the constant complaints from the membership about EVERYTHING we do wrong. Remember, you can't make everyone happy ALL the time.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
If there is a constant problem, Derek is "the boss" and he will handle everything that we screw up on.

...

We are volunteers, if you want a timely response, feel free to put a bribe in your PM when sent.

...

Remember that we tripled the number of Moderators last year.

Therefore the bribes do not go as far.:brokenheart:

 

[GiggleGirl]

why can a thread not be specified FOR neffing? what is it hurting if its not pissing anyone off?

 

[esquared]

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl
why can a thread not be specified FOR neffing? what is it hurting if its not pissing anyone off?

You mean this?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: esquared

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl
why can a thread not be specified FOR neffing? what is it hurting if its not pissing anyone off?

You mean this?

What if people, including the OP, are involved in conversation that naturally strays off the original topic? Is that against the rules? Should the thread be locked? What if we don't want to participate in a giant thread full of junk that doesn't have anything to do with our conversation? Do we have to start a new thread every time the natural course of conversation changes topics? It's ridiculous to expect a couple people having a good time in an actual conversation (not just tossing stupid memes around for the sake of postcount) to govern themselves going "WAIT! Stop. We're not on-topic (even though this is off topic) so now we must stop and create a new thread or continue this conversation in the official neffing thread!"

A little leeway would be nice, and completely reasonable.

 

[vlosuit]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
I'll start things off I guess.

I'll be honest here, I think that some parts of this are good, other parts are bad. I like the clearer rules, we've needed those for a long time. I also really like the moderator guidelines as this further clarifies things for what the moderators will be watching. Furthermore I really, really like the public list of banned URLs because we've had problems with sites such as ChiefValue and eBay being blacklisted for reasons that not even the moderators could answer well.

I am less enthusiastic in the changes to how moderation is done however. I fear that by having non-anonymous moderators, we're going to see a concentrated effort to drive out the mods in places like Politics & News and Video Cards, where political and video fanboys respectively will do their damnedest to run out the mods whenever they feel slighted or feel the mods don't have a "neutral"(i.e. matching) bias. Similarly, with rigid rules I could see the guilty parties trying very hard to walk the line and cause as much trouble as they can by doing something that's on the line, getting moderated for it, and then complaining to the senior mods about all of this. In short it's a private forum and the mods need to be able to be authoritarian at times to maintain order, and this may undercut that.

But I think it's too early to completely judge the changes. This could work, so this may work, but everyone will need to keep an eye on how things are going before deciding if the new moderation changes are effective or not.

i think so ,i like here ,but have some is bad..

 

[Sea Moose]

Since signing up to AT forums i have been banned several times. I have never received a warning for any bannages.

1) Warning members of a violation ? For isolated incidents, first time offences, or minor infractions, moderators will issue a warning to a user in the form of a Private Message (PM).

I basically have found out the hard way some of the "rules" which are not listed anywhere. And if had of been given warnings i would have stopped what i was doing and would have taken on board the advice given


It seems that the only ban i feel i deserved was the heller incident. The rest seemed to be mods quick to jump on the ban button. It even states in the rules that bans require warnings.

I have learnt the hard way that, call out threads are bad and quote nesting is bad. Where in the rules does it say you cannot quote nest? Again i got instantly banned, no warning, nothing.

2) Temporarily banning a member (vacation) ? If a member receives multiple warnings, or commits a serious violation of our guidelines, the member will be temporarily barred from posting on the forum.

I really like ATOT, i wanted a way to talk to Americans and have a few laughs and perhaps learn something on the way.

Banning people instantly is not the answer to correcting bad behavior. I think that the mods need to follow through with this guide line and start giving out warnings.

Perhaps a 3 strikes and your out arrangement?



Sorry, if i sound rude but i am sick and tired of being constantly banned for rules i didnt even know existed.

Also, when you are banned and you feel you didnt deserve to be banned, how are you supposed to post in the personal forum issue?

There should be an impartial person who can make a final ruling on a ban and decide if the mods acted too heavily handed, or if they were perhaps too light on a sentence. But i mean, its not fair to ban someone for rules that arent written anywhere.

 

[EagleKeeper]

5) Spamming will not be permitted. On topic references to your personal commercial matters are permitted on a limited basis and at moderator discretion. Multiple quick nef posts, posts designed to generate traffic to specific web sites, and flooding the Forums will not be tolerated.

Given that you participated in #5 of the Do Not Do guidelines, the implementation of the second half of #2 would seem justified.

When one choses to jump in and follow the leader instead of thinking for themselves, ...

If the advisories of what one should not do were not in place, you would be able to have a justifiable position.

Did you actually read and comprehend the TOS before you made your first post?


Also realize that when one group of members that should have known better are being issued vacations; fairness needs to apply to all participants, unless one has a worse history of disobeying the guidelines.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose

...

Also, when you are banned and you feel you didnt deserve to be banned, how are you supposed to post in the personal forum issue?

There should be an impartial person who can make a final ruling on a ban and decide if the mods acted too heavily handed, or if they were perhaps too light on a sentence. But i mean, its not fair to ban someone for rules that arent written anywhere.

You have the option of respectfully requesting a review to the Moderator that issued you a vacation, you can request a review by the Senior Moderator staff or appeal to Derek.

Email or PM communications can be used.

Make sure to include a link to the thread that the incident happened and clearly state your case for the appeal.

 

[Sea Moose]

thank you for the hasty response to my questions.

sorry bout my stupid posts as of late ( i am sure they are on my permanent record) This whole wait a week banning stuff has really really really pissed me off.

also what is a multiple quick nef post? And arent all threads that link to a video illegal by the logic on the rules? I know what flooding a forum is

5) Spamming will not be permitted. On topic references to your personal commercial matters are permitted on a limited basis and at moderator discretion. Multiple quick nef posts, posts designed to generate traffic to specific web sites, and flooding the Forums will not be tolerated.

what does this mean? In laymans terms

1)

On topic references to your personal commercial matters are permitted on a limited basis and at moderator discretion

2)

Multiple quick nef posts

3)

posts designed to generate traffic to specific web sites,






perhaps the rule book needs a glossary?

 

[Fern]

TTT

Fern
Super Moderator

 

[Pliablemoose]

I've only done a cursory look, and haven't noticed, but is there an explanation of the new categories of Admins & mods? ie: Forum Director, Super Moderator, etc?

 

[EagleKeeper]

I've only done a cursory look, and haven't noticed, but is there an explanation of the new categories of Admins & mods? ie: Forum Director, Super Moderator, etc?

Forum Director - equivalent to what Derek was under FT (Perknose & Bamacre)
Administrators - equivalent to the Senior Moderators under FT
Super Moderators - equivalently to the Appointed & Elected Moderators under FT (There may be a subdivision for this level)

 

[Capt Caveman]

fwiw - the Anandtech Moderator account is not able to receive pm's.

 

[olds]

fwiw - the Anandtech Moderator account is not able to receive pm's.

They are just dying to hear from you.
http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=56

 

[Ken g6]

I kinda wish the following were still true:

Moderators have a title listing the forums they moderate.

Is that not possible anymore, or is it just delayed?

 

[ViRGE]

I kinda wish the following were still true:Is that not possible anymore, or is it just delayed?

We'd have to write a custom title for each mod, and frankly we're much too lazy to do that. The forum still knows who mods what, as those mods only have mod powers in the right forum.

 

[MotF Bane]

I kinda wish the following were still true:Is that not possible anymore, or is it just delayed?

1)
http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36
Scroll to the bottom of a sub-category to see the moderators of the section in the lower right.

2)
...nevermind, they locked it. wtf.

 

[Boo Boo]

anychance there will be a signature limit? somehave gotten way out of hand

 

[ultimatebob]

I just received an "infraction" for quoting someone's babe picture in an OT topic.

What does this mean, exactly? It's this like a three strikes system, or just friendly warning?

 

[erikistired]

I just received an "infraction" for quoting someone's babe picture in an OT topic.

What does this mean, exactly? It's this like a three strikes system, or just friendly warning?

it's for keeping track of your behavior. mods can see patterns that way. once it times out it's just there as a note i believe.

on some forums (i'm not sure about this one honestly) as points accumulate there are consequences, like three points is a 24 hour ban, 7 points is a month ban, 10 points (active, not over your posting lifetime) is a perm ban.

if you didn't get a vacation with your infraction i would take it as a warning not to do that in the future, personally.

edit: also, i'm not a mod, and therefore speculating.

edit: also, you should probably post this in moderator discussions.