Kudos to the moderators and site admins for taking action in this case. And surely it's not necessary to list everything that can get a person banned. Threatening the site should be a lifetime ban, whether it breaks a rule or not, as just one example. As we have seen in the past, the mods and admin are quite merciful but they also have the awesome responsibility of protecting this site which means so much to so many people. I appreciate you guys, I appreciate the site, and I appreciate your decision to take action in this case. Good job, guys, and may the odds be always in your favor. :-)

Holy shit, I just read through this and Draug's thread. While Draug's ban is not a huge concern (if he did indeed claim responsibility for the SQL attack and DDOS and such), I'm SHOCKED that you have the audacity to say only people who have been in trouble with mods do not like the new policies.

That's completely wrong and really fucking insulting. I guess semck and I, among others, are trouble players now?

"the main thing I'm looking forward to is seeing Synapses reaction"

lmao he's like beetlejuice

Very well said, Semck. I agree with all of that 100%.

I too have no issue with the decision re: Draugnar. I always thought his DDoS bullshit was just that, bullshit, but if it's serious then yeah that's too much.

I do not like the continued "vagueness" of what is and is not acceptable. I want as free a forum as possible, but that doesn't mean I would not be willing to accept some modest restrictions, SO LONG AS THEY WERE CLEAR. As it stands, they are definitely not clear. Again, I'd like to stress that this general argument is completely detached from the Draugnar situation.

Generally, the impression I get is that we have this problem of "vagueness," because the mods themselves do not completely agree and see eye to eye on what exactly the restrictions are. Perhaps it is time that you all sat down and talked about exactly what should and should not fly on this site, and what the appropriate consequences ought to be.

Unlike chaqa and semck, I probably am one of the "problem children" of the forum, and I'd also like to point out that I am on the same list that Draugnar was: the "last strike and you're out" that I racked up probably two years ago and apparently never expires. This was done by my creating a fake account, not for the purpose of cheating, but merely to play obvious jokes on fellow members, that I immediately confessed to.

I do not think it's OK that some poorly-defined trespass may have me irrevocably banned as well. I would never DDoS the site, but would I claim to have done, just to piss somebody off? Smart money says yes.

More clarity is needed.

Forum moderation:

Self-moderation:
A user-driven approach is generally taken to forum moderation;
You can mute any other user which you don't want to see in the forum or get PMs from.
You can mute any forum thread you aren't interested in.
You can mute any country playing in a game with you.
This allows you to block out anyone or any discussion you find offensive, and be as open or restrictive in what you see as you like!

Site-moderation:
Rarely self-moderation isn't enough; e.g. threads which share information on a private / anonymous / gunboat game, or threads about suspected multi-accounters / meta-gamers / bugs.

These have a negative impact on games which self-moderation can't prevent, so the mod team can lock/silence these threads:
Silences can apply to a user or a thread.
The details can be viewed on the forum page, when the "New thread" button is pressed.
Thread silences last indefinitely, but user silences expire after a brief cool-off period.
Silenced threads / users can still be viewed, however no more messages may be posted.
Silenced users can still play in games; it affects the forum only.

Remember that mods will only silence users / threads when there has been a clear rule violation, as a last resort.

If it's a first time mistake, and you inform the mods that you won't repeat it, they will probably be happy to reduce your cool-off period!

Don't create new accounts to work around user silences, or post threads to continue on from ones which have been silenced! This may result in bans etc, which would be worse than simply keeping off the forum for a few days.

Thanks for helping keep the forum from negatively impacting peoples' games!

This is the complete list of "rules" for forum moderation.

"Remember that mods will only silence users / threads when there has been a clear rule violation, as a last resort."

+1 Chaqa.

Just to clarify, by the way, I think bright-lines rules should be stated if they are going to be enforced.

But I miss the days of, oh, what was it, ten days ago or so? when there weren't bright-line rules at all (public or private), and threads were only locked when there was an oustandingly, urgent good reason to do so -- the days described in Chaqa's post. I suggested at the time that this would happen. I never dreamed it would be so fast. I really hope that the mods will consider backing off the moderation to a couple of extreme, really bad offenses, such as threatening personal harm against another forum member, posting porn, or breaking the law.

If there are to be rules, they must be stated, but it would be much preferable to return to the status quo ante.

Remember when moderation was put in place and Maple's hate thread was held up as an example? Please read it, and then read dirge's thread, and ask yourself if things have slid just a little, really really fast.

Again, this is tough, because I'm arguing for two positions that could seem contradictory (even though they're not), so I want to be really clear. Preference: no bright-line rules. But real need: if there ARE (unfortunately) going to be such rules, they should be stated.

@smeck, you seem to have captured most of what everyone concerned with my post wanted to say, so let me answer this and hopefully it'll clear up most of the concerns.

i) We're sad to see him go too, this is not an ideal situation and I wish it had not had to come to this.

ii) We're working on this, it's actually much more difficult then you'd think as the formatting in the code takes a decent amount of work to change and I don't have a testing environment set up yet. Zultar will be working on getting the rules laid out so that they can be added to the rule page under the forum moderation section, and then I'll work on adding them in. I expect it will be done within a week at most.

iii) My answer to II should address your concern on ambiguous clauses.

It is not a plea to secrecy, I was informing you that we do not and will never discuss all the details of our cases. Krellin's and Draugnar's both include details that we cannot release as they involve members person info and/or how we catch violations. That is the same as with game side cases and will never change. If you cannot trust the mods, admins, or site owners to this degree then I'm sorry but I can't help you here. It is a private site, and we give as much information as we are able.

You notice I asked you to appeal privately first, and to discuss the matter in private. To follow the appeal process laid out in the site rules. Where you email the mod email first, and then the site owners if you don't receive a satisfactory answer. You note that nowhere does that appeal process involve going to the forum, which should be your last resort. That appeal process has existed since before I joined the site and has worked well, we have never had a case where a mod has hidden an abuse of power.

The other comment I will make here is that all warnings are given in private via email or pm by Zultar or another mod/admin who deals with the forum when it comes to forum infractions. This has been the case for quite some time, and inherently means that when someone is silenced they have already been warned. This is part of the problem when people assume that something is unfair and rash, without knowing the full story, and assuming they do.

Like I said though, people who are very troubled by something are encouraged to contact us in private, and if multiple people do so on a specific issue we'll clarify the issue on the forum.

iv) As stated, we will give out as much information as possible, I'm glad that the amount we were able to give out was mainly satisfactory.

v) This was a statement that Zultar added in quickly. He tried to work it up quickly so we could address the growing issue on the forum. What that paragraph was meant to express is that an overwhelming majority of the feedback he has received has been positive. And that the people who have been in trouble with the mods have been those who have been unwilling to work with us on this issue. It was phrased poorly, which myself and 2nd missed in our review, and for that I apologize. By no means is it the view of the mod team that all people who have raised concerns on this topic are trouble members.

What it should say is that all of the disrespectful, and angrily phrased protests outright condemning the moderators and the new moderation have been from problem members. We have no problem whatsoever with members who present concerns in a rational way. Such as yourself and Chaqa.

Apologies for missing that incorrect statement, I hope you understand no offense was meant by it, and the main point of this thread was to be transparent and explain why Draugnar's behavior was ban worthy. It was a secondary objective to thank members who have overwhelmingly replied with encouragement in relation to the new forum moderation method, as well as to thank those who have pointed out potential issues with the new method. As the feedback is extremely important to the team in determining how different methods are working.

vi) We appreciate the trust and the feedback.

Nothing unclear about that, semck.

Clear rules are needed. Without clear rules, mod decisions, however well meaning, are arbitrary.

dirge,

Yes, if there's going to be this level of moderation, there need to be rules. I hope they are limited to something as brief as those I listed. We'll see.

@jmo,

Thank you for the responses and clarification.

"we have never had a case where a mod has hidden an abuse of power."

Well if it was hidden, you wouldnt really know about it would you...

To reiterate some of what jmo said, it was not my intention or the mod/admin's to say that only people who have raised concerns are troubled members. Fact of the matter is that I have talked to almost all of you who have had concerns, and most of you have not had any issues or troubles with the mod team or have had trouble deciding what is appropriate to post or what lines shouldn't be crossed. So, to chaqa, semck, YJ, and anyone else who was offended by my poor wording, I sincerely apologize.

We are working on codifying some of these rules down and for the vast majority of users and threads, the rules will not affect them. These rules are not new rules as they have been developed throughout the years, but we have not updated as much as we should have, which again, I take responsibility for.

Give us some time to get these rules down, and in the mean time, if you have any more concerns, please feel free to email or PM me.

I admit I feel slightly bad that I started a thread that ultimately led to Draug's final meltdown and lifetime ban, especially since he was defending my right to make the thread that got locked. But, I realize Draug has a very big chip on his shoulder about freedom of speech on this forum and was simply using my thread as a foil, and in the end only Draug is responsible for his own behavior.

Ironically (considering the general lack of cordiality around here), some have also expressed a concern, not just at the decisions of certain mods, but also the manner and tone in which they communicate their decisions.

I bring this up only in hopes that this point does not get completely forgotten.

Regarding the issue of clear rules, I think it is unfortunate that we have arrived at a point where clear forum rules are necessary and even called for by users. The fact that the necessity for such rules was instigated by Draugnar several months ago makes this all the more ironic - he led to charge to push and find the boundaries of common decency in the forum but has the gall to complain when he finally crosses the line of his own creation one too many times.

For those site members who have been around for a few years, I think we can all reminisce fondly of a forum where this type of moderation was neither necessary nor called for. I think we should all take a second and consider the cause and effect relationship here for forum moderation. If a clear set of rules for forum behavior is the effect, who or what was the cause? Chief among those causes was Draugnar, and I am confident when I say the need for such rules would not be nearly as imperative if it weren't for Draug's need to push the boundaries of kestas's more than liberal policies toward free speech on this forum.

I urge you all to consider why you visit this site. Do you come here to play Diplomacy? Do you come here to instigate conflict, insult others who do not share your beliefs? Yell and scream and hold your breath and stomp your feet unless you get your way? This is a Diplomacy site first and foremost. The forum is and always has been a sideshow and, in my opinion, detractive from the main reason we all came here in the first place; namely, to play a game we all love.

We moderators and admins love the game enough to take on an administrative capacity for the site. Personally, I love the job - helping users by finding and banning cheaters, making games run more smoothly, helping set up unique tournaments, and generally making the site enjoyable and fun for fans of Diplomacy. Unfortunately, the forum is why we have such a high turnover rate and makes me hate the job at the same time. Having to deal with infantile behavior on the level of junior high students makes me bang my head against a wall, especially when the mods need to waste an entire week coming up with rules for a forum that has become needlessly chaotic.

Damn Dudes he deserved it. He would threaten the mods what? Wow... wow and he tried to post porn...really? How did he stay as a member for so long?

Oh uh I wasn't trying to question you guys I just was wondering i started playing this around the end of spring so I'm still a little new sorry at this.

Wow stupid android phone

Of course you did Blank.

Dirge, you aren't at fault for his ban, he is. He wasn't banned because of today but because of promises he made in the past that he chose not to keep.

Wait, they made bosox a mod? lordy lordy I'm tempted to DDoS the site now too.

" I think we can all reminisce fondly of a forum where this type of moderation was neither necessary nor called for."
My question is why is it called for now.

People have always been swearing on this site, people have always been 'spamming' (the definition of spamming according to the mods here is pretty broad, since they use it broadly so will I) this site, its only recently that mods have tried taking action against these.

Obviously for cheating accusations/talking about ongoing games, moderating is needed, and always has been.

But if users personally don't like what they see, they can mute, any further moderation is unnecessary.

Silencing Draug and Krellin for speaking their minds is a bad move on the parts of the mods, especially considering I doubt that Draug really was being the DDOS attacks.

If Draug really was behind the attacks ban him, but don't just ban people based on their speech.

You guys all seem to think me being a moderator is a bigger deal than it actually is.

"You guys all seem to think me being a moderator is a bigger deal than it actually is."
I'm included in that list... and I was a mod, lol

While it is no big deal, the feeling of power it gives you over other members of the community is a big deal.

@Fasces, I think we've established about 50 times that the Krellin's behavior wasn't just forum related. Draug was given a final warning months ago, and knew any violations, such as posting for a silenced member, could end in a ban. The fact that he was sending pm's that demonstrated he had every intention of attacking the site via SQL injection was icing on the cake and made it something we couldn't ignore.

I don't see it, Fasces. You all know who I am, you all have your preconceived notions about me, why would I think that eight blue squares in a cute pattern next to my name is going to change any of that?

haha bo, I like where your head is at, but that opinion might change after you settle into a rhythm of it.

It's against the rules to post a silenced player's PMs?

Yes, that's in the current rules, kinda defeats the purpose of a silence.

@ JMO. I know he posted a silenced members PM, but that was just to prove a point that Krellin did not believe he understood why he was silenced( wether he did or not ,is another matter....he was not trying to let krellin speak through him. I don't know all the ins and outs of your past discussions with him obviously and if you and the team felt this was necessary then so be it, but it should not happen based on his post of krellins PM.