Forums Kongregate

the mods.... page 2

53 posts

Flag Post

Heh, have a bunch of your friends come and say it was unjustified. Or perhaps its for both other mods and users alike. Maybe like you have to get one other mod to agree and like 5 users or something like that. Whatever they come up should be good, Kongregate hasn’t let me down yet.

 
Flag Post
Why voting? You made them mods all should trust them right? :/

I’m not thrilled with voting but that stems from the admins thinking the mods seem “Ban happy” at times.

That’s why I was suggesting a mod board (which you do have) so you guys could cool off, discuss and possibly overturn a permanent ban. Mods are only human, they can get mad and make mistakes.

Voting seems to undercut a mods authority.

Wow do I dribble on a lot.
blah blah blah blah blah

 
Flag Post

I agree with you Baltazar357. We do have mod forums as well and we do use them to discuss issues pretty extensively. Some who have banned recently have actually got a few pages of input and lots of chances before it was decided to give them bans.

 
Flag Post

Baltazar, I agree with all of your points. We do discuss possibly unjust bans on the mod forums. Also, any user who feels they have been banned unjustly can just email a staff member. So, not only would a voting system be abused, but it would undermine a mod’s authority.

 
Flag Post

I can not, in good conscience, side in favor of any limitation of my unbridled power.

 
Flag Post

Mods are only human, they can get mad and make mistakes.

You are right. Maybe I should give that excuse to my Math Teacher, eh?

The voting system will probably be for level 2 & above since most people are too lazy to level up their alts.

 
Flag Post

I personally think the voting on bans is a really super good idea. Yes, the admins appointed us so they must trust our judgement. However, they’re not watching our every move. Plus, it hasn’t been said that a low vote on a ban would automatically mean that the ban was unjust. I assume that if the vote on a ban is low the admins will go back and read the logs and can take it from there. They can either decide that the vote was unfair or the ban was unfair but it would not automatically mean either one. The goal of the admins is to make the site as wonderful as possible, it only makes sense that they would want to make sure the mods are doing our job well and fairly. The ultimate goal is happy users and the way they can figure out how y’all feel about the mods and mod system is to have you vote on our decisions…

My only issue is that sometimes the users don’t know all the information or history behind a ban. Actually, the event that I think started this whole thread was me banning two alts of a user who has recently been perma-banned (although I can’t be certain… the first post confuses me greatly). It would have done me no good to explain to the entire room exactly what had gotten the user permabanned in the first place and would have just lead to more arguing and drama and then I would have needed to explain how I knew the alts were this person. I had no doubt that these two names were alts of this person (and he has since confirmed to me it was him); however, there were, I’m sure, a lot of confused users in the chat. So, if this system is undertaken, I think it would be helpful to give the mods an option to not have the room vote on a ban in extreme situations.

 
Flag Post

Finding ways around a ban is mega easy, ask a friend, make a new account straight before a ban, delete cookies.. etc etc. Trust me i know these things. A vote on the ban would be entirely useless, users aren’t mods and shouldn’t be given the vote to change a decision of the mod’s actions. As to the voting system for Level 2 and above as Jude said, also stupid, the games record how far you got and saved data, for instance StarShine, Newgrounds Rumble, Caravaneer, 3D Logic, and many more. All of these games provide easy badges for people who have completed them before. I’m not going to suggest anything either but i seriously doubt any of these things would work. I will suggest that we should have a rule book, and not some hazy guidelines for mods to pick and choose at.

 
Flag Post

My view on it is as goes……It would be good to some extent, however, it would create more work on the already busy ants of the Kongregate staff checking out whether a ban was unjustified depending on how highly unjustified the users feel about it.This could be heavily exploited and be a time waster for the staff. While it does undermine the status of a mod it could further involve the community in matters that I know many wish they were apart of. The likely hood of a moderator having more than one banned checked out is fairly good. Lets say that happens, What happens to the moderator that has repeatedly did their duty with professionalism and the ban was justified? Do we stop looking into further bans from that mod or do we keep doing it even though they already proven themselves multiple times? On the other side of spectrum, what do we do to a moderator that has many unjustified bans even though he/she thinks they are justified? Do we de-mod them do to a few momentary lapses of reason or do we keep them and let them go on modding?

 
Flag Post

“It would have done me no good to explain to the entire room exactly what had gotten the user permabanned in the first place and would have just lead to more arguing and drama and then I would have needed to explain how I knew the alts were this person.” – AlisonClaire

That is such rubbish, you could’ve simply put “He/she got perm’d and therefore shouldn’t have been on the site.” And instead of just presuming these were the alts of the person in hand, you should’ve taken a look at all the evidence to say it was that person and then sought out advice from another before you banned. So okay it was that person in the end, but what if it wasn’t? What if it was someone similar but new to the site? Then you would’ve dropped yourself in it and given kongregate a bad name.

 
Flag Post

Now your alts are giving me ulcers as well. Thank you.

And I would never ban someone for being an alt of a perma-banned person unless I knew for certain. This particular person, as you very well know, makes it a point to let me know it’s him in ways that make it totally clear that it could not possibly be someone else.

and Cmurda, you make good points. However, since the people in charge are big fans of this idea it seems they’d be willing to at least hypothetically do the work of looking into it. I just know that there are users who feel like they’re not being listened to and are being unfairly targeted by the mods and I would really like a way to open the lines of communication.

 
Flag Post

I would think it would be a good idea maybe after they get the card game out and it seems they have more time on their hands.

 
Flag Post

What you all need for the alt problem is a IP look up.
As each person’s ip change only the subnet mask is changed so ban the subnet mask or more simpley….

Fake ip addesses:
201.223.001
201.224.002
201.225.003
And so on.
So it’s easy too rid ourselfs of the “Alt” problem.
>.>

Just wondering,Who in the fuck makes a alt for this website?
Wee! i can get the same badge twice? :I

On a personal note if the user was banned on the main account the alts should be banned as well.
Otherwise what you’re like expecting “Oh! i’m angry at _____! But wait! I’m a alt I’m not mad at them anymore!”.
Sorry if this is offensive but yeah if you think that will happen then pigs are flying.

 
Flag Post

On a personal note if the user was banned on the main account the alts should be banned as well. Otherwise what you’re like expecting “Oh! i’m angry at _! But wait! I’m a alt I’m not mad at them anymore!”. Sorry if this is offensive but yeah if you think that will happen then pigs are flying.

Banning the family members of someone who uses a router != happy ending.

 
Flag Post

And every alt is someone else….
Sureee…..

 
Flag Post

I’m really not fond of the voting idea, specially when thinking about that being applied in the chat I use. A lot of active users are real life friends who would undoubtely help their mates no matter what. And I believe their sooooo mature that they would start rubbing on the mod’s face that they are “more powerful” than him…

 
Flag Post

And every alt is someone else…. Sureee…..

No, but would you think that taking that risk is A-OK? Maybe you do. I have a router, and if I was banned because of what my brother did, I would be pissed.

 
Flag Post

i think when you ban someone you should ban there email address, and have each email address limited to one account, that way to make it harder for people to have multiple accounts. I like the idea of voting on bannings, even though i do not know what it will accomplish because most times there are bans the person is anoying everyone that is in the chat.

 
Flag Post

Some people share an email address. Believe me; my parents share an e-mail.

 
Flag Post

“No, but would you think that taking that risk is A-OK? Maybe you do. I have a router, and if I was banned because of what my brother did, I would be pissed.”
Janck

Well then i would be semi-sure that my brother was behaving.
Easy fix.
The voting on a ban is a remarkabley BAD idea.
Can’t be said enough.

 
Flag Post

IP Ban and vote on a ban are useless…

Let the mods vote then so we will be supreme champions!

 
Flag Post

People are doing an awful lot of speculating in this thread :D

First of all, if there were a vote, a bad vote or a good vote world not necessarily mean anything and voting would almost certainly be anonymous. Would friends help each other out? Yes. But we would also provide a quick link to the guidelines, and in theory, a lot of them silent folk who you don’t realize are lurkin’ round the chat room would participate and the whole system should be relatively clean.

Now, lets assume there is some sort of fraud in the voting. Alts or some such. We would investigate the vote for being disproportionately high or low (to see if it was justified), and then investigate the accounts that voted one way or another to check them. Surprising as this may be, this system on the whole DECREASES the amount of work involved by staff. Currently a large portion of bans are reported to us as ‘unfair’, each of which requires a full investigation of chat logs and 1 on 1 moderator discussions. Using a voting system, some bans would still be deemed unfair, but we would have quickly accessible statistics of the users on Kong to check and see if that claim has any validity. If the claim seems to have validity we could then investigate to make sure no fraud happened.

What the votes do is let us see which mods are making consistent, long-term decisions that are favored by the community, or if their decisions are regarded as flimsy and potentially abusive. This statistic will be our absolute BEST tool in assuring that as the site grows and has more moderators, that we do not appoint anyone who would abuse their power or create a negative attitude towards the volunteers who do this hard work for no pay.

I’m not sure exactly why you guys think it’s a bad idea, but if you still feel the same after reading what I just wrote, feel free to let me know.

 
Flag Post

Well said, damijin. I’m on board for the voting system 100%.

 
Flag Post

Bleh, Mostly like newgrounds i see.
What would voting do?
I can allmost smell it.
“Hello Did that banning make you happy in you’re shorts? Yes/no?”
I dunno sounds useless too me.

 
Flag Post

Surprising as this may be, this system on the whole DECREASES the amount of work involved by staff.

Exactly. Not only would investigating moderators take less work, but it would make it easier for us to appoint more moderators (knowing that they’re easy to keep track of), so that would also create less work yet again.

“Hello Did that banning make you happy in you’re shorts? Yes/no?” I dunno sounds useless too me.

Well, obviously the person being banned is not going to be happy. But we could do something like only counting one vote per IP to prevent the banned person from voting against his own ban on another account.

But, yes, bans are supposed to be for the benefit of our users. We’re not cops handing out speeding tickets here. We’re just trying to keep chat reasonably free of spam and overly abusive behavior. The moderators are supposed to act in the best interest of those in the room, so theoretically, yes, the majority of the people in each room should approve of each ban. If they don’t, something might be wrong with the system.

I’d just like to state yet again that I really don’t care about banning people for “justice” or to “teach a lesson” or something. I really don’t. All I care about is keeping the site reasonably sanitary (“squeaky clean” is not a goal either). Yesterday someone was spamming in chat, I told the person to stop, he kept doing it, I asked again, then he stopped. Perhaps I was a bit lenient by offering two warnings after the first was blatantly ignored, but someone in the room said it was unfair that the person hadn’t been banned, since someone else had been banned earlier for less spamming after just one warning. Guess what? I don’t care. The person stopped, so there was no need to ban in this case. The whole point of banning is just to stop someone from doing something, and that should ALWAYS be in the best interest of everyone else in the room.