Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-5374144-20161222055559/@comment-4845243-20161231094257

BraveNewRoyalty wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

BraveNewRoyalty wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: A lot of the conversation in this thread seems a little off the mark. Chat has been fine recently. Moderation has been competent, people haven't been banned, nothing terrible has been reported.

Not only that, but chat has been leniently moderated. It's been quite chill lately, at least when I've been on. Plenty of stuff is allowed, no one's fun is being ruined by new oppressive crackdowns.

Such a comprehensive list is definitely not needed. What's needed is common sense and decency. It seems to me the only problem is that a few select users just don't know how to handle themselves on chat. We shouldn't have to make an extensive, tedious master-list for the benefit of a few people who don't know how to behave.

These users should take their cues from the vast majority of people on this wiki, who use chat without getting banned. I think we all know full well that the common sense or honor system we have been trying to promote for the last year just isn't working. One's common sense is completely different from another's, as seen between the conflict between me saying things that I believed were to be protected under the common sense rule, with support of others, and against what an admin (Rio at the time) believed to be protected under the same rule, with support of the other admins. It is clear that '''common sense isn't working. '''To keep promoting that system is detrimental.

Now I agree that my actions and "ableist" comments were quite on the rude side, there's no denying that. The problem that I would like to fix is consitency. Perhaps this has changed, but other mods and admins would allow me to say those things without any turbulence. There is absolutely nothing right with different parts of our judicary system enforcing different rules at the same time, which is exactly why this list was proposed, and exactly why it should be implemented. If all of our cm/admin team had the same knowledge and interpretation, we wouldn't have to have this, but it is clear that they do not. I definitely see your point, but I think the problem of consistency was solved already. The admin team came to a consensus — all active admins agreed with the main point I made in my blog. I made that blog at their prompting after discussing the issue with them. So the admins all agree.

After we agreed, we told the moderators to comply with our consensus via my blog. Moderators who blatantly disregarded this were demoted or warned via private messages.

Thus, there has no longer been a disagreement. And as a result there haven't been any conflicts of the sort after you and Keplers were banned. I am glad that you report the administrative team has finally taken such measures to improve the consistency, however there are still certain gray areas that can easily be made exploitable, even if your blog was followed word for word. (Assuming you whipped the mods into shape prior to my banning) For example, I have made several remarks, in between the time after your blog was created, and before my ban, that were allowed by the current "active duty" mod, Rome. So I thought to myself that I was in the clear with saying such things. Then, a few minutes later, anywhere between five to twenty, Web kicks me for the comments that Rome didn't. (after coming back from afk) So now I'm thinking two things: such words and phrases are not allowed, or Web is just a bad mod. So I try again, saying something that someone might take as offensive, and almost the same thing happens. This time, Rome, Slice (he was a mod at the time), and Bubbles were all actively on. No punishment. Then, again, Web kicks me after he comes back from being away. There was still a clear problem after your policy blog.

Now I cannot speak for how things are at this very moment, but I very well suspect that after Keplers and I are unbanned, nearly the same process of different mods having different interpretations of our violations of rules will still take place. Is it our fault? The mods? I'm not the one to decide that, but something, either the eternal banning of us, or the demotion of the under preforming mods will have to happen.

With the proposed list, when it is completed, the admins wishes would be amazingly clear and cogent to everyone. Every mod will know exactly what to enforce, and every user would know exactly what not to do. Not only must you inform the moderators of what is not allowed, which you did via PMs if they were not already enforcing, you and the entire admin team must inform the users. This list would adequetly do this, it is solid, preserving, and official. It would indefinitely stop a lot of problems generated by our aforementioned group. (which is real) You do make a good case. However, it seems to be that only a handful of users are having this kind of trouble. Since there are so few of you, how about you ask us about the specific things you want to say, that some allow and others don't? Then you can get an authoritative answer from the admins. If a mod kicks you for what we allow, you can tell them what we said — and we will take action accordingly.

This way, all that needs to be done is you ask us questions. The fact that 99% of the wiki hasn't been banned or kicked recently means that most of us understand what is appropriate and what isn't, so the problem isn't the rules it's just that a few people are unclear on what they can say. Let's clarify that by having open communication instead of a massive list that will never be perfected and can easily be abused.