Re: *An update to the forum rules.*

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

It's odd that in a post where you emphasize all it takes is a simple request without official action to get people to listen - you are also continuing the discussion that has been repeatedly requested to not continue here. Please demonstrate that you can listen to requests. I am trying to be very lenient about this, but it's been mentioned several times now.

[Ramsus]

Uh... sorry about that. It didn't make sense to me to make an entirely new thread to explain to people who I don't talk to on skype but, do still talk to why I was contributing again.

[LoganAura]

I would like a better documentation of warnings, though. Like how in your profile you can see your favourites or your topics being watched, and those are private to just you, one more tab there for warnings and their expiry. I'd not advise keeping them there, only putting the active warnings, so people don't "collect" them, but just a possible long-time-later suggestion that seemed somewhat on-topic.

Generally, most warnings are given in PMs, so if someone doesn't delete the warnings, they would most likely be able to see their warning at any point and know just when it ends (At least with the way I sent out a warning recently.)

Essentially how I sent the warning was that the topic of the PM was "Offical Warning" or something similar, rather than putting it in a pm with re: or the like, so... Honestly the only reason someone should forget they were warned at this point in time would be the deletion of the pm, and if they open that message up, see the expiration date. (I had given that too, although the date the message was sent plus 2 months would give them the right time.)

Various time frames were considered, some by myself individually and others.
Week: What it had been. People had done multiple things multiple times after the warning's Expiration, so that was out
2 week: The longest possible time frame a warning was allowed before it was considered null. Again, people had done the same things they were warned soon after the warning's expiration
2 month: The ones below seemed like too much, and would cause issues with the severity of the change. Also kept the time frame it seemed people generally went back to breaking the rules (If minor for the most part) in place.
3 month: Not having the warning end would be terrible, and if the time frame is short the same issues can arise as before.
No End: If someone changed and had a bad day a year down the road, then the warning would just appear out of nowhere and they would get upset, annoyed, or even angry.

My opinion on a month, considering what has happened before: People have done the exact same thing they had been warned about generally only a little after a month later. Sometimes repeatedly over a little more than a month later. I feel 2 months is still a good time frame, because it keeps that same exact thing from going on over and over.

[Ramsus]

So, what I find myself asking is.... why is this not a vote? The rules are in theory there to protect the memberbase. Shouldn't we then be the ones who decide how long we feel is an acceptable interval for infractions caused largely by brief moments of annoyance/ire/not agreeing with the staff? I think at this point more of us are concerned with power abuse than with someone occasionally getting a bit riled up. (I could be wrong, not everyone voices their opinion but, I don't think I'm obligated to count opinions I'm not sure are there that aren't being voiced.) If you're denying us the right to choose, you're basically just saying the rules are there not for the members of this forum but, solely for the benefit of the staff. At which point, why bother having them at all? Of course, I suppose if you allowed us a voice in this matter you might have to consider we would also wish to have say in the other rules or even the entire rules system. Which we should always have had to begin with and to every suggestion of such has been met with hostility by the staff.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

1) Interestingly, Raven and Logan, the original rules do provide a special note that if someone continues pushing the edge of the rules or has a habit of getting warnings 'every quarter' that the case in question should come up for special review and the warnings might be made permanent.

2) We want to get everyone's opinions on the system and we're designing it to try to give everyone the best possible experience. Everyone's opinion is valid and we want to hear everyone's input and ideas. However, every professional game of any success, consequence or quality that I'm aware of doesn't design by groupthink. Groupthink heavily resists change to existing mechanics (Magic the gathering is a great example, as many of its most popular and important innovations were originally met with an outcry of resistance), has an impulse to enjoy overpowered game elements rather than lose personal power, is prone to adding new toys at the cost of accessibility for new players and is necessarily comprised of many people that don't have a complete understanding of how the system's balancing numbers work. It's had a really, really poor track record across the history of game design. We want to get everyone's feedback, but we then sift through the feedback and try to address it while keeping an eye on everyone else's desires for the system and the core mechanisms that make it work.

That said, anyone can of course run Pony Tales however they like via house rules and add in their favorite community-driven expansions like the cool Talent-Upgrade system (which we still want to figure out if we can integrate in some fashion once the core system is complete). People use eachother's unofficial talents all the time, extra elements of harmony, monsters designed by the community, extra destinies, changes to the core mechanics and more. The 'official' system only means it's the document with my stamp of approval on it, the document that seems - to me - most in line with our goals of balance, elegance and flexibility for roleplaying fun. If you find that stamp of approval to be valuable in some way, that's great to hear. Naturally, there's no obligation to just use what we think works.  

Additionally, I do want to create a document when I get a chance that lays out all the math and design principles clearly - for everyone to see - that drives development of this game. I've talked about it in a lot of places before, so a lot of you might already know about the math, but a single document would be really helpful. Then we might even be able to have some sort of test by which people could demonstrate their understanding of the system's balance and design goals - so they can offer feedback on community designs to help them get into the official documents. The only reason I haven't written out the math before was that the last time I did some of that, for weapon design, people got really intimidated by all the numbers that go into balancing - and people stopped submitting item designs for a while because of that. Hopefully, we can make it look less intimidating this time.   

[A1C Bronymous]

Groupthink heavily resists change to existing mechanics, has an impulse to enjoy overpowered game elements rather than lose personal power, is prone to adding new toys at the cost of accessibility for new players and is necessarily comprised of many people that don't have a complete understanding of how the system's balancing numbers work.

Man, quit talking about me, I'm not even in this conversation.

[Paper Shadow]

Various time frames were considered, some by myself individually and others.
Week: What it had been. People had done multiple things multiple times after the warning's Expiration, so that was out
2 week: The longest possible time frame a warning was allowed before it was considered null. Again, people had done the same things they were warned soon after the warning's expiration
2 month: The ones below seemed like too much, and would cause issues with the severity of the change. Also kept the time frame it seemed people generally went back to breaking the rules (If minor for the most part) in place.
3 month: Not having the warning end would be terrible, and if the time frame is short the same issues can arise as before.
No End: If someone changed and had a bad day a year down the road, then the warning would just appear out of nowhere and they would get upset, annoyed, or even angry.

Wait, who was this actually tested on? Where did these facts about how people acted came from? What sample did you use?

[Ramsus]

I must have missed something here somewhere. What is Dan's "2)" responding to. At first I thought it was my last post but, that doesn't make any sense since the forum rules are not a game system.

[ZamuelNow]

As someone new, I tend to feel like there's been a sort of passive-aggressive war going on with some posters and some members of management and that there's some sort of lingering sentiments.  I feel like it's more of the latter; something happened early on and it's never been let go.  Of the discussion of the rules themselves, I feel that at face value a 1 month warning period is fine.  The issue comes from interactions with those giving out the infractions and those receiving them.  Now, in the grand scheme of things, the forum mostly seems to get along but it's just a vibe I get in some discussions.  I could be dead wrong but just my opinion.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

The forums overall are definitely running very nicely. =)

One issue I'm not sure has ever been clarified is what exactly this two month warning system *means*. Currently, the system has something like a 5-strikes-then-you're-out basis. Starts off with warnings, then goes to 1 day temporary ban, then a few days and so on. Previously, the system took off a strike you earned pretty quickly. I'm pretty sure this change means that it takes longer for your strikes to go away - but you still get quite a few strikes before you're out. So it's not like breaking 2 rules in 2 months would mean you were banished beyond time and space.

[Hayatecooper]

If I ever get banned please tell me it's going to be called being banished from time and space?

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

I'll do my best to make sure of it.  

[Ramsus]

The issue is less the length of time and more what the admins qualify as an infraction. A shorter length of time simply makes it harder for someone on the admin side to abuse the system to create a result that isn't actually warranted. For example: Banning someone on X-mas for objecting to a staff member insulting every member of the forum.
Even with ideal staff with this rules system, two months is excessive.
Edit: I got ninja'd a lot.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

Quick announcement - it turns out that the 'report' button that comes with the forums was invisible. You can now click the report button on any post, including a staff member's post, to instantly report what looks like a rules violation or a fight-in-the-making to the attention of the moderators. It's that exclamation point thingy.

For example: Banning someone on X-mas for objecting to a staff member insulting every member of the forum.

As for Ramsus, while your view of history is always interesting to hear, your doubtless well-intentioned dredging up of various perceived offenses you've suffered isn't helpful. It simply begs for a clarification of your version of events, supplemented by quotes of the actual posts involved that show what was actually said. This leads to drama. This is a request to stop this behavior, and as you've said on multiple occasions that a request is all that is required - please demonstrate your willingness to listen to comply. That way no warnings will have to be issued.

[Ramsus]

Um..... respectfully.... no? You can't actually tell me I'm not allowed to voice my opinions. The only reason they cause drama is because the staff gets offended by what I have to say and responds in an inappropriate way. If you want less drama, change your rules and change the way you moderate. Otherwise, don't complain about something your staff causes and pin the blame on me.

Any drama caused by people being allowed to hear my side of events is a result of reactions to it, all of which people, myself included, are entitled to. I don't care how many different ways you say it, I won't obey any requests to stop disagreeing with you just because you happen not to like it and don't understand or wish to handle it in a mature fashion. You can threaten me all you wish, I and everyone else are entitled to our opinions and are free to discuss any topic we like regardless of your opinions of them so long as they don't result in giant flame wars.

Edit: I don't much appreciate the not subtle insult mixed in with a dismissal of my viewpoint. (Though, the later is your prerogative, I just think it's rude.)

At this point I'm going to say we really should as a forum have a proper discussion of the rules and kind of enforcement policies we actually want and feel are appropriate and not just blindly accept what the admin/designers feel works best for them. In the first place, game designers should not be admins of their own forum. It's asking for drama to start with and it's with that decision that's how all of these issues Dan wishes to pin the blame on me for began.

Edit 2: I'd also like to point out Dan could have made the request privately and is violating his own declaration that we should stop discussing the topic and in so doing is creating drama (if you'd qualify this response as such) quite intentionally.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

Well, you've demonstrated adequately that the proposed solution of simple requests won't work - as you can't listen to it yourself. When things revolve around requests, some people simply ignore any requests they don't personally agree with.

To bring up months-old issues in an announcement thread that everyone can see, and then make a blanket ludicrous statement without any kind of quote from a post or screen shot to back it up is simply inviting drama. Even if you did bring a full quote of some ancient grievance, you would still be inviting drama. Are you forgetting that you yourself asked your own offensive threads to be removed from the public eye, as you thought keeping them in view after the matter had been resolved would just offend people? However, every time people are irritated with you - they don't start bringing up all your previous offenses in the public forum.

I'm absolutely open to tinkering with what restrictions should be provided under what circumstances, changing the warning system and how long penalties last, figuring out whether there should or shouldn't be a public bar and a lot more. We can open a thread for that. Those policies were set up by karilyn a year ago, and we now have had a long trial with them. Like everything in the actual game as well, they're open to changes based on testing. However, one thing I'm not going to budge on is the basic requirement of being polite to other forum members. I know you find this difficult Ramsus, you've said that multiple times, but it's not an option. If you can't write polite posts, that's sadly your problem. Most people have no issue with it.

[Ramsus]

Hahaha, no. You can't make a request that I stop having opinions and equate it to a request to stop flaming or trolling.

Edit: Also, I don't believe the forum has discussed and proposed anything yet. How could I demonstrate a non-existent proposition can't work?

I'm not going to respond to that second paragraph, it's just bait (and it would be long long discussion with bad decisions on both sides that I don't think anyone actually wants to hear the whole of even if it wasn't, it's really enough to say that unlike you guys I both got punished and more importantly admitted I did anything wrong).

I don't find being polite difficult and I find the assertion insulting, I just don't have the same view on what is polite that you do. I for example don't think it's polite to dismiss another person's viewpoint just because I don't like it, to ignore & mock them when they tell me they feel harassed by me and my friends, or threaten them simply because they don't agree with me.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

I'm not going to respond to that second paragraph, it's just bait (and it would be long long discussion with bad decisions on both sides that I don't think anyone actually wants to hear the whole of even if it wasn't).

Actually Ramsus, you're the one that brought up the thing in the first place. You're right though that it'd cause a long discussion that no one wants or needs to hear about. That's called drama. Stop creating it. When you bring up an old issue, especially without any context and summarize it as being banned for merely objecting to someone insulting every user on the forums (blatantly untrue, the reason for the ban was explained to you and it still exists in the text - which makes two administrative actions in one thread that you've managed to misrepresent) - it's going to create drama when it's retreaded.

And yes Ramsus, I am telling you to knock it off. You are being obstinate, provocative and a great deal more. I am trying very hard to be lenient, but if you can't even show the self-control to stop discussing yours months-old issues here - you're going to have to receive another official warning.

[Ramsus]

Please stop pinning your poor choices on me. These conversations are not one way and I've not been the instigator of any drama in this thread. They're your issues too and it is you and Logan who choose to go into details and want to make big scenes out of it and then reprimand me as if I was responsible for your actions.

And Dan, I've been asking you to knock it off. You are being obstinate, provocative, and a great deal more. I am trying very hard to be patient, polite, and tolerant but, if you can't even show the self-control to stop discussing months-old issues here you should stop throwing stones from glass houses.

[LoganAura]

Various time frames were considered, some by myself individually and others.
Week: What it had been. People had done multiple things multiple times after the warning's Expiration, so that was out
2 week: The longest possible time frame a warning was allowed before it was considered null. Again, people had done the same things they were warned soon after the warning's expiration
2 month: The ones below seemed like too much, and would cause issues with the severity of the change. Also kept the time frame it seemed people generally went back to breaking the rules (If minor for the most part) in place.
3 month: Not having the warning end would be terrible, and if the time frame is short the same issues can arise as before.
No End: If someone changed and had a bad day a year down the road, then the warning would just appear out of nowhere and they would get upset, annoyed, or even angry.

Wait, who was this actually tested on? Where did these facts about how people acted came from? What sample did you use?

These are simply predictions more than anything else. Not tested, but predicted. and the sample is previous warnings given to people on the forums, though admittedly since the sample size for warnings themselves are small, and the repeated offenders are even smaller, it is once again mostly predictions.

Precautionary versus reactive.

[Stargaze]

I realize I don't post here often. Two kids and a full time job can make for limited time in places like this. But I think it needs to be said.

Clearing the slate after a week seems very, very lenient to me, perhaps too lenient. A month or two makes perfect sense. The rules are hardly over the top or too harsh, in fact, I think they fall under the category of basic, common sense. Treat others the way you want to be treated, with respect. It makes for a more pleasant and enjoyable environment, as I see it. Two months is hardly unfair. I can see people having the occasional off day, but they should be able to behave themselves for longer than a week, right?

[Dr Blight]

As for Ramsus, while your view of history is always interesting to hear, your doubtless well-intentioned dredging up of various perceived offenses you've suffered isn't helpful.

I'm not sure how this can possibly be seen as an appropriate way to respond. It should be blatantly obvious that this will just incense whoever you're speaking to, leading to "back-talk" "obstinate behavior" and "perceived offenses."

It simply begs for a clarification of your version of events, supplemented by quotes of the actual posts involved that show what was actually said.

You should always be asking for those anyway as they're integral to proper conflict resolution. We don't want these forums to become youtube where trolls can just flag a user due to dislike and turn the moderators into their own personal banhammer.

Even if you did bring a full quote of some ancient grievance

So long as the grievance is relevant to the issue, its age does not matter. That's the entire point of this thread after all, extending the duration of a grievance before the slate is wiped clean.

And yes Ramsus, I am telling you to knock it off. You are being obstinate, provocative and a great deal more.

And you have been provoking it.

And Dan, I've been asking you to knock it off. You are being obstinate, provocative, and a great deal more. I am trying very hard to be patient, polite, and tolerant but, if you can't even show the self-control to stop discussing months-old issues here you should stop throwing stones from glass houses.

Highly disrespectful admittedly, even if provoked.

As a moderator your job is to be unbiased while resolving disputes. I can perfectly understand Ramsus can be very difficult to deal with at times but if you personally find him to be difficult, you need to pass handling issues with him over to someone who doesn't. If you're having a bad day you need to pass dealing with troublesome individuals to someone who isn't. You absolutely need to do this if you are one of the ones involved in the dispute. You are no longer unbiased in such cases.

Personally speaking, I do support "GroupThink" for choosing who should be a moderator as it allows the community to choose members who they feel best represent their interests and can handle the responsibilities involved. While moderators should be able to get along, they really shouldn't be chosen from a tight knit group of friends. Doing so means that when an issue comes up with one, it can easily spread to the rest which will absolutely destroy the unbiased nature the position requires on a large scale. Friends tend to side with and stick up for their own friends.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

Blight, dredging up old drama is against forum rules and is absolutely not appropriate for this thread. It's also not okay to continually misrepresent what actually happened. Ramsus misrepresented moderation twice in this thread, twice making false claims about reasons he received warnings or bans.

As for not making it personal - I agree. Nehiel Mori was the one to actually review this dispute, someone not involved in the conflict or previous conflicts, and he agreed that the 24 hour ban was in line with the rules. Ramsus had previously agreed to have his cases handled by Nehiel.

I know that Ramsus is your friend, but that doesn't give him an excuse to break forum rules. Nor does perceived provocation become a license to break forum rules.

Edit - Either way, this discussion has gone on long enough. It existed to discuss the time length on how long it should take before your warning bar decreases. It's clearly gone way off topic. If anything further continues on it, I'll have to move it to the basket - as repeated requests to stay on topic have yielded no cooperation.

[Dr Blight]

I can't speak for any of the past bans and warnings as I simply do not have the details. However, from interacting with Ramsus I can say he is not misrepresenting them in his own view. That is legitimately how he interprets the interactions, which has led to a feeling on his part that the existing moderators are not capable of being unbiased with regards to him.

edit:lol, ninja'd

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

I can't speak for any of the past bans and warnings as I simply do not have the details. However, from interacting with Ramsus I can say he is not misrepresenting them in his own view. That is legitimately how he interprets the interactions, which has led to a feeling on his part that the existing moderators are not capable of being unbiased with regards to him.

edit:lol, ninja'd

In fairness to a long-poster on the forums (and as you were ninjaed by my edit when I asked you to not continue this - so you didn't get a chance to see it) I'll leave one last response.

I also believe that Ramsus thinks these things. However, ignorance of forum rules is not justification for not following those rules - and neither is ignorance of the explicitly stated reasons for your moderation justification for misrepresenting them to the public forums. It's all written in the PMs and I was easily able to track down the discussions in question. The Christmas one he mentioned even had its PMs posted, by him, in a public thread. I reviewed them before commenting to be sure my memory of the incident was correct.

I know he's your friend and I don't at all like that he's upset. But we can only be lenient for so long.

And with that, discussion closed. We'll discuss the new length in warnings lasting (I'm guessing they'll be dialed back a bit) in the Rules Discussion thread from now on - it's in the off topic forum.

[Sponsored content]