Warnings

[tueidj]

(07-10-2015, 03:45 PM)DacoTaco Wrote: but i get it, obviously my joking behaviour is no longer wanted

Making a joke these days normally gets you a 20% warn increase - maybe more, maybe less because the forum rules make no mention of punishment amounts. If you're lucky you'll also get a PM about the warning, otherwise you'll just be expected to improve your behaviour without even receiving notification that you did something wrong.

Enjoy your stay at the Dolphin Forums, where we just make the rules up as we go

[Garteal]

It was just a joke, but it wasn't received as one clearly. The response Daco got should be sufficient as a warning and an indication for how things are here nowadays.
Those who have been around for a while would've been able to tell it was clearly a joke, so I don't blame you Jimbo for calling it out.
Anyway, we're in Delfino Plaza and this is the random thread. A little joking around is ok in here imo.

(07-10-2015, 06:51 PM)tueidj Wrote: Making a joke these days normally gets you a 20% warn increase - maybe more, maybe less because the forum rules make no mention of punishment amounts. If you're lucky you'll also get a PM about the warning, otherwise you'll just be expected to improve your behaviour without even receiving notification that you did something wrong.

20% (by default) is the amount for most of the offenses. Anything higher has to be something specific or (repeated) abuse.
There are few forums that specify anything about the penalties you get if you breach em. But I'll discuss this with the rest and see if we'll add a paragraph or two about this in the rules.
About the no PM thing yes, that should definitely be addressed.

Thanks for the tips.

Oh and for the record, it was mostly a blast for me to read your posts. ;p

[tueidj]

(07-11-2015, 12:24 AM)Garteal Wrote: 20% (by default) is the amount for most of the offenses. Anything higher has to be something specific or (repeated) abuse.

The reason I mentioned it is because 20% is listed as "2 points". That doesn't make much sense if it's the default value, why have a unit size (1 point) that is smaller than the minimum punishment?

[Garteal]

Because someone decided the offenses are worth the 20%.

[Shonumi]

(07-11-2015, 12:45 AM)tueidj Wrote:

(07-11-2015, 12:24 AM)Garteal Wrote: 20% (by default) is the amount for most of the offenses. Anything higher has to be something specific or (repeated) abuse.

The reason I mentioned it is because 20% is listed as "2 points". That doesn't make much sense if it's the default value, why have a unit size (1 point) that is smaller than the minimum punishment?

1 to 10 points can be assigned by Forum Staff for reasons outside the categories of Trolling, Flaming, Backseat Moderating, Ignoring Forum Rules/FAQs, and Off-Topic Talk. The latter are automatically considered serious infractions, hence the default of 2 points. However, for other cases, specific values of 1 to 10 can be issued depending the severity of the violation. Imagine a user repeatedly violating several forum rules in a short amount of time; this might warrant 4 points (40%) for a single warning. A user may be given a 10% warning for a specific reason for smaller offenses; this response would be a minor step up from verbal warnings, but not as severe as the categories listed above (e.g. someone repeatedly links to the old site after we ask them to stop).

We are going to clarify the warning system in the next few days in the Global Forum Rules. As usual, the changes will be documented in the Forum Policy Changes thread. Remember, this is also a thread for the community to discuss forum policy. Pointing out that the current rules don't clarify warnings in detail (as tueidj did) is exactly the type of communication the thread was meant to facilitate. It's there, so please remember to take advantage of it

Now, regarding this mishap between Daco and jimbo. I did not see the original edited text (by the time I looked jimbo, you had already edited it). As such, I cannot accurately judge if Daco's edit was in fact inappropriate.

@Daco, things have indeed changed in the past few years. Editing posts is bad form as it concerns moderation; it's something we used to do in the wilder days of the Dolphin Forums. Again, since I don't have the text of the post that is at issue, I cannot take action against anyone here. I can't yell at you, nor can I ban jimbo. Even so, as part of Forum Staff, I will just remind you that we need to maintain a certain level decorum in our actions with the community. That's all this is, just a reminder. I know you said you wanted to move on, but I had to address this given my role as Admin. I will, however, leave things at that. Poof! No more talk, we're done.

@Everyone else - If you feel an issue has not been properly addressed, my PM box never gets full. Ever. So send me something if you want to hash things out. That's kinda why I'm here.

[tueidj]

How about we keep things public instead, for the sake of transparency.

Can you explain why I was given a 20% warn for a one line joke (in a thread that had already served its purpose) while it was ok for you to take virtually the same joke many steps further, including telling people they would have to pay multiple times for Dolphin releases?
I count four trolling posts made by you in that thread, at a minimum of 20% warning increase for each post that adds up to 80%. An additional 20% warning increase could easily be justified due to successive violation of the same rule multiple times, and at the very least you have failed to live up to the higher standards expected of a moderator (let alone an administrator).

I would also like an explanation why you did not inform me that a warning had been applied for this post. If you had paid attention when you posted your threat of warnings, you would have seen that I was already in the process of replying. I did not disobey your instructions because they simply weren't there when I began composing my awe-inspiring display of wit. If you want to shut a conversation down while it is still in progress, simply lock the thread; you can't expect real-time compliance on a non-real-time message board just by asking nicely.

[Shonumi]

(07-11-2015, 11:24 PM)tueidj Wrote: Can you explain why I was given a 20% warn for a one line joke (in a thread that had already served its purpose) while it was ok for you to take virtually the same joke many steps further, including telling people they would have to pay multiple times for Dolphin releases?

The thread you linked to was among the first instances of the whole "Dolphin Pro" joke, when Starscream was around and we had different management. Something like that under SS was deemed to be more joking than trolling. If you want a fuller explanation, you'll have to ask him directly why he allowed it by multiple forum members. Regardless, as a result of numerous people thinking "Dolphin Pro" is a real thing following that thread, "Dolphin Pro/Dolphin U" jokes are frowned upon today. Most threads about them get closed quickly and we almost always clarify that the rumors are based on a bad joke that refused to die. We also don't want to perpetuate the myth.

But that's not the reason you were warned. You were warned in that thread for making off-topic comments. You also made two off-topic posts about it, not just one. A one-time occurrence could have been a verbal warning, yet you did it again. "Dolphin Pro/Dolphin U" jokes have nothing to do with a serious discussion regarding Cogito Ergo Sum's question. The thing is, it's not up to you to decide if a thread has served its purpose or not.

(07-11-2015, 11:24 PM)tueidj Wrote: I would also like an explanation why you did not inform me that a warning had been applied for this post. If you had paid attention when you posted your threat of warnings, you would have seen that I was already in the process of replying. I did not disobey your instructions because they simply weren't there when I began composing my awe-inspiring display of wit. If you want to shut a conversation down while it is still in progress, simply lock the thread; you can't expect real-time compliance on a non-real-time message board just by asking nicely.

How exactly is one to know that you were "in the process of replying"? Unless I am expected to constantly look at the status of all users online or at least your profile specifically, all I can see is that your post came after my verbal warning. You had time to take note of the verbal warning after you posted; you could have deleted or edited your post appropriately, however, you did not. The warning was not issued as soon as you made your post, rather some minutes thereafter. If you simply fire off your own reply and don't bother to read any other relevant posts made in the meantime, that's on you. Additionally, we can't revoke a warning based on thoughts you keep to yourself. If you don't complain about things like this, we're inclined to let warnings stand as they are.

[tueidj]

(07-12-2015, 01:44 AM)Shonumi Wrote: The thread you linked to was among the first instances of the whole "Dolphin Pro" joke, when Starscream was around and we had different management. Something like that under SS was deemed to be more joking than trolling. If you want a fuller explanation, you'll have to ask him directly why he allowed it by multiple forum members. Regardless, as a result of numerous people thinking "Dolphin Pro" is a real thing following that thread, "Dolphin Pro/Dolphin U" jokes are frowned upon today. Most threads about them get closed quickly and we almost always clarify that the rumors are based on a bad joke that refused to die. We also don't want to perpetuate the myth.

So it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do". Hypocrisy at it's best.
Why hasn't the thread been deleted if it has lead to confusion, and the subject discussed in it is now so taboo that the merest mention (even in the context of "we don't talk about that") earns a warning for being off-topic?

Quote:The thing is, it's not up to you to decide if a thread has served its purpose or not.

Ok, it's not up to me. Let's see what the rules say:

Quote:Necroposting: Do not revive a discussion older than 6 months unless your post adds something meaningful or otherwise contributes to the thread.

Now go back and look how long that thread had been dormant... Shame on me for disrupting such a hot topic, right?

Quote:But that's not the reason you were warned. You were warned in that thread for making off-topic comments. You also made two off-topic posts about it, not just one. A one-time occurrence could have been a verbal warning, yet you did it again. "Dolphin Pro/Dolphin U" jokes have nothing to do with a serious discussion regarding Cogito Ergo Sum's question.

Firstly, that first post was only half a joke. I know there are in fact several developers who have ceased working on Dolphin who are interested in WiiU emulation, and in my opinion they were/are better developers than most of the current ones. The "DolphinU" name was a throwaway, but the message was not completely off-topic.
Secondly the post I was warned for was a direct answer to a question asked by another member. How is that off-topic? And if a one-time occurrence would warrant a verbal warning why was I not given a verbal warning? How do you expect people to know when they've broken a rule when a) you yourself have done exactly the same thing in the past and b) you don't tell them? Which leads me to...

(07-11-2015, 11:24 PM)tueidj Wrote: I would also like an explanation why you did not inform me that a warning had been applied for this post.

You did not address this at all. Garteal's response indicates a warning should not be issued without notification so I would like to hear why you did so. Certain mods have made excuses in the past that they couldn't message me because I have PMs disabled, but that is bullshit because other mods can still send me PMs and an admin would not have less privileges.

Quote:How exactly is one to know that you were "in the process of replying"?

You look at the bottom of the screen where it says "Users browsing this thread" and mouseover their names to see what they're doing. I would have expected a moderator to be familiar enough with the forum software to know this (and I know that mods and admins can see the status of hidden users, so that's not an excuse).

Quote:Unless I am expected to constantly look at the status of all users online or at least your profile specifically, all I can see is that your post came after my verbal warning. You had time to take note of the verbal warning after you posted; you could have deleted or edited your post appropriately, however, you did not. The warning was not issued as soon as you made your post, rather some minutes thereafter.

So in other words you expected me to pay more attention after making my post than you did before posting yours.
How am I meant to know what time the warning was issued when I was never notified of it? Likewise why would I assume you had a problem with the post when I never received notification of a warning, instead of thinking you had the common sense to realize I'd started posting before you did and just let it slide.
You could (should) have locked that thread then and there if you didn't want any more off-topic posts. Certainly nothing of value followed, unless you count the amusement factor.

Quote:If you simply fire off your own reply and don't bother to read any other relevant posts made in the meantime, that's on you. Additionally, we can't revoke a warning based on thoughts you keep to yourself. If you don't complain about things like this, we're inclined to let warnings stand as they are.

Are you trolling now? Every time I make a post I'm expected to check nobody has posted "Don't talk about XXX" in the meantime? Or use a psychic ability to sense the invisible posts that have been made between clicking "Reply", composing, and clicking the "Post Reply" button? I'm also expected to complain about warnings when I'm unaware that I've incurred them?
How about instead, you should actually give people the chance to follow your orders before punishing them for not doing so. Or better yet take appropriate action that will ensure the situation will not continue instead of waiting for someone to step over the line in the sand that you've drawn behind them.
This is what happened the last time I complained "about things like this", when a moderator directly insulted me in violation of the forum rules. What did you do then? You condoned it. Didn't even edit it out. Because apparently moderators don't have to abide by the rules that they expect everyone else to comply with.

[Shonumi]

tueidj Wrote:So it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do". Hypocrisy at it's best.
Why hasn't the thread been deleted if it has lead to confusion, and the subject discussed in it is now so taboo that the merest mention (even in the context of "we don't talk about that") earns a warning for being off-topic?

It's a case of things were different 2 years ago, and your case in question was a different matter altogether (read: off-topic talk rather than joking/trolling). The thread isn't deleted because we prefer to let users know the truth. It was a bad joke. If they want proof, we have it. You weren't warned specifically for mentioning the subject of Dolphin Pro, you were warned because Dolphin Pro had absolutely nothing to do with providing a relevant answer to the user's question. Let's be clear, joking around isn't against the forum rules, but repeatedly making posts that are off-topic is not something we accept these days.

tueidj Wrote:Now go back and look how long that thread had been dormant... Shame on me for disrupting such a hot topic, right?

Yes, because you had nothing significant to add.

tueidj Wrote:Firstly, that first post was only half a joke. I know there are in fact several developers who have ceased working on Dolphin who are interested in WiiU emulation, and in my opinion they were/are better developers than most of the current ones. The "DolphinU" name was a throwaway, but the message was not completely off-topic.

The joke added nothing to the discussion however, nor did your follow up post. Even if we consider that some Dolphin devs have moved away from the project because they are interested in WiiU emulation, your post did not elaborate that point, especially for those who don't know that fact (really, only now is it just coming into light). Whatever your intent was, it reads as something that doesn't contribute to the overall thread.

tueidj Wrote:Secondly the post I was warned for was a direct answer to a question asked by another member. How is that off-topic? And if a one-time occurrence would warrant a verbal warning why was I not given a verbal warning? How do you expect people to know when they've broken a rule when a) you yourself have done exactly the same thing in the past and b) you don't tell them? Which leads me to...

If your first off-topic post creates or elicits a response, we still consider those following posts off-topic if those posts are deviating from main topic. It's not something we can ignore. Sometimes multiple infractions happen before a member of Forum Staff get a chance to respond (MaJoR responded well after your two posts were made), in which case she deemed a verbal warning insufficient. Consider that not every post or discussion can reasonably be read in a timely fashion by Forum Staff, therefore we are late sometimes in catching violations. That does not diminish the severity of those infractions or the punishment dealt thereafter.

tueidj Wrote:You did not address this at all. Garteal's response indicates a warning should not be issued without notification so I would like to hear why you did so. Certain mods have made excuses in the past that they couldn't message me because I have PMs disabled, but that is bullshit because other mods can still send me PMs and an admin would not have less privileges.

I publicly told you that warnings would be dealt. There is no hard-set policy (formal or informal) of PMing or informing users of their warnings. Not yet anyway. As I said, we're in the process of clarifying that forum policy. But as of now, it's up to the discretion of Forum Staff. I verbally told you what was going to happen prior to anything being issued, so at my discretion, I issued the warning without sending you a PM.

tueidj Wrote:You look at the bottom of the screen where it says "Users browsing this thread" and mouseover their names to see what they're doing. I would have expected a moderator to be familiar enough with the forum software to know this (and I know that mods and admins can see the status of hidden users, so that's not an excuse).

None of that is visible when previewing a post, however, which is how I write a number of my responses. As I recall it, I was in the process of writing that response up via preview. And again, you had time to change your post after it was submitted. The warning was not instantly applied.

tueidj Wrote:So in other words you expected me to pay more attention after making my post than you did before posting yours.
How am I meant to know what time the warning was issued when I was never notified of it? Likewise why would I assume you had a problem with the post when I never received notification of a warning, instead of thinking you had the common sense to realize I'd started posting before you did and just let it slide.

Consider that you wouldn't have received a warning at all had you not been intent on making off-topic posts to begin with. Again, all it took was a moment to scroll up and edit or delete your offending post. Common sense says you could have easily rectified the problem yourself, or at least prevented the situation that brought it up. You have other options of being notified of your warning (via your Control Panel, or by taking note of the % next to your name in every one of your posts, the link can be clicked).

tueidj Wrote:You could (should) have locked that thread then and there if you didn't want any more off-topic posts. Certainly nothing of value followed, unless you count the amusement factor.

Except kirbypuff's post actually contained relevant info (despite the unofficial "FAQ"-like way it was presented) that had not been mentioned previously (the github Milestones) and helios747 commented on IRC chatter, providing more insight into the situation. Jhonn also clarified some misunderstandings as well. Locking a thread is the nuclear option; if I feel I can stop off-topic talk without resorting to it, then I won't can the thread.

tueidj Wrote:Are you trolling now? Every time I make a post I'm expected to check nobody has posted "Don't talk about XXX" in the meantime? Or use a psychic ability to sense the invisible posts that have been made between clicking "Reply", composing, and clicking the "Post Reply" button? I'm also expected to complain about warnings when I'm unaware that I've incurred them?
How about instead, you should actually give people the chance to follow your orders before punishing them for not doing so. Or better yet take appropriate action that will ensure the situation will not continue instead of waiting for someone to step over the line in the sand that you've drawn behind them.

Again, all it took was a simply mouse scroll or flick of your finger to see what was written above your post. You're expected to complain about a situation if and when you feel it isn't justified. Assuming you have been aware of the warning for a while, you should have said something earlier rather than bringing it up here for the first time.

tueidj Wrote:This is what happened the last time I complained "about things like this", when a moderator directly insulted me in violation of the forum rules. What did you do then? You condoned it. Didn't even edit it out. Because apparently moderators don't have to abide by the rules that they expect everyone else to comply with.

Except no one classified that as an insult. While it may have been offensive to you, MaJoR was just stating the facts. A number of people do consider your personality abrasive, and you do have a penchant for angering people easily. I'm sorry that you felt that way, but MaJoR's words were in no way a personal attack on you. You can disagree, but that's the decision we concluded as Forum Staff.

[tueidj]

(07-12-2015, 06:00 AM)Shonumi Wrote: You weren't warned specifically for mentioning the subject of Dolphin Pro, you were warned because Dolphin Pro had absolutely nothing to do with providing a relevant answer to the user's question.

The user's question (since deleted) was "What is DolphinU?" yet my direct answer was irrelevant? I think you're just making this up as you go, rather than knowing what actually occurred.

Quote:Yes, because you had nothing significant to add.

I had an opinion about the situation, which I expressed. Nothing off-topic about that.

Quote:The joke added nothing to the discussion however, nor did your follow up post. Even if we consider that some Dolphin devs have moved away from the project because they are interested in WiiU emulation, your post did not elaborate that point, especially for those who don't know that fact (really, only now is it just coming into light). Whatever your intent was, it reads as something that doesn't contribute to the overall thread.

I disagree. Many people remain blisfully unaware of the changes in developers behind the scenes and I was bringing that to light. Unfortunately that was ignored and instead the user decided to focus on a different part of my comment which was off-topic for the subject and which I ended conversation of by saying we don't talk about it. And for that I received a warning. Great job.
You are actually trying to justify giving a warning for an off-topic post when that post was literally "We don't talk about __OFF_TOPIC_SUBJECT__". That is ridiculous.

Quote:If your first off-topic post creates or elicits a response, we still consider those following posts off-topic if those posts are deviating from main topic. It's not something we can ignore.

Even if the following posts refuse to discuss the off-topic subject, apparently.

Quote:That does not diminish the severity of those infractions or the punishment dealt thereafter.

And yet you suggest editing a post to remove offending content is acceptable if it's done before a warning is issued. Another case of making up rules as needed to suit the situation. If this is not the case it should be clearly defined in the policy.

Quote:I publicly told you that warnings would be dealt. There is no hard-set policy (formal or informal) of PMing or informing users of their warnings. Not yet anyway. As I said, we're in the process of clarifying that forum policy. But as of now, it's up to the discretion of Forum Staff. I verbally told you what was going to happen prior to anything being issued, so at my discretion, I issued the warning without sending you a PM.

But still (even until now) left the offending message in place for everyone to see. Isn't that a bit odd since it's such a flagrant violation of the rules? Later posts in the thread even encouraged such behaviour...

Quote:None of that is visible when previewing a post, however, which is how I write a number of my responses. As I recall it, I was in the process of writing that response up via preview. And again, you had time to change your post after it was submitted. The warning was not instantly applied.

Just like new messages posted while composing cannot be seen! But my status would have been visible before you started, whereas I had no opportunity beforehand to know that you would forbid the post while I was in the process of creating it.

Quote:Consider that you wouldn't have received a warning at all had you not been intent on making off-topic posts to begin with. Again, all it took was a moment to scroll up and edit or delete your offending post. Common sense says you could have easily rectified the problem yourself, or at least prevented the situation that brought it up. You have other options of being notified of your warning (via your Control Panel, or by taking note of the % next to your name in every one of your posts, the link can be clicked).

That is how I learned of it, well after it occurred, and why I am here now discussing it. Stop being condescending and telling me I should speak up when that's exactly what I am in the process of doing.

Quote:Except kirbypuff's post actually contained relevant info (despite the unofficial "FAQ"-like way it was presented) that had not been mentioned previously (the github Milestones)

Which the OP completely disregarded...

Quote:and helios747 commented on IRC chatter, providing more insight into the situation. Jhonn also clarified some misunderstandings as well. Locking a thread is the nuclear option; if I feel I can stop off-topic talk without resorting to it, then I won't can the thread.

Considering there were more off-topic posts (without any action taken...) I think you failed.

Quote:Again, all it took was a simply mouse scroll or flick of your finger to see what was written above your post. You're expected to complain about a situation if and when you feel it isn't justified. Assuming you have been aware of the warning for a while, you should have said something earlier rather than bringing it up here for the first time.

Again, I was not aware of the situation because you failed to notify me of it. My attention was only drawn after a following warning was applied. My apparent lack of situational awareness should not be used as an excuse for yours; you are a moderator, it is your responsibility to fulfill your role properly and you failed to do that in an effective way by handing out a warning without making sure it could be heeded.

Quote:Except no one classified that as an insult.

It was originally a metaphor which another user then turned into a direct insult. Stated that way I fail to see how you could not see it as an insult, it was definitely intended as such and Major's post unquestionably reinforced it.

Quote:While it may have been offensive to you, MaJoR was just stating the facts. A number of people do consider your personality abrasive, and you do have a penchant for angering people easily. I'm sorry that you felt that way, but MaJoR's words were in no way a personal attack on you.

As forum staff I expect you to know the difference between personal opinion and facts. Of course people can share the same opinion, but that does not make it a fact. Regardless the rules are quite clear there should be no flaming/harrasment, meaning an uncontroversial statement like "Hitler was a dick" is unacceptable even if everyone is in unanimous agreement that it is true. Slapping a moderator-endorsed derogatory label on someone is completely out of line.

(07-11-2015, 04:12 PM)Shonumi Wrote: Even so, as part of Forum Staff, I will just remind you that we need to maintain a certain level decorum in our actions with the community.

One has to admire the level of sophistication and maturity shown by the staff when they collectively reach the conclusion that calling other people names in public doesn't constitute an insult.