Jump to content

Consultation or at least notice before changing rules


Recommended Posts

I recently received a PM from one of the Mod staff politely informing me that a forum rule had been, or was about to be, changed in a way that would affect me. I regret that I didn't take this news particularly well for non-related reasons, but we'll not go into that.

 

The point of the thread is that it seems to me that any change in the forum rules which would affect the users (which would seem to be any change, really) really ought to be discussed beforehand, or at the very least, a significant notice period (I would say not less than one month) should be given.

 

It really doesn't seem fair to simply change a rule then pop up to someone and go, "Oh, by the way, we changed the rules and now you'd better toe the line."

 

Just a suggestion to keep the forum the user friendly place we know and love...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, you think that you, or indeed the average forum user, should have a democratic say on the rules governing the forum?

 

Tough.

 

Arnies is a dictatorship. Get used to it. This is not a democracy, in any way shape or form. There are those with power, and those without. You are part of the masses; That is, those WITHOUT power. True, it's a benevolent dictatorship, but it's a dictatorship nonetheless. Arnie is in supreme charge, as it's his website. A while back, he left Marlowe as an admin in his stead, and various other mods with varying powers were assigned to people who were deemed trusted and respectable, and so forth.

 

The rules are made by the admins, with the higher-up mods consulted. The rules are generally chosen to enhance the forum experience for the average user, or to protect the forum (This was the reason for the recently revoked 1J rule). They are not; I repeat, NOT made to tailor to what a specific member wants, or feels is appropriate.

 

The long and short of it is, we (the moderating and admin guys) know what we're doing. New rules are made for a reason, for the betterment of the forum at large. Bluntly, get used to it or get out. If you decide that these new rules affect you directly, well, tough. The rules are the rules, and we're not about to change them for one member. If a significant portion of the forums thinks they suck, then we might do something (Remember, this is a benevolent dictatorship ;)), but one member compared to the whole forum? Do the math.

 

 

To put it in a nutshell, when you said "Oh, by the way, we changed the rules and now you'd better toe the line.", you were spot on. That's how it is. Blunt, succinct, and to the point. To be blunt once more; Deal with it.

 

 

 

Also, apologies if any of the moderating team feel irked at me referring to arnies as a dictatorship; But, it's an apt description, used before many times, so, meh :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nothing to do with me, personally, but it's clearly not right to change the rules without even notifying people they they're GOING to change beforehand.

 

The rule I refer to, there is NO notification of any change, the last update by Arnie himself was in 2005, and I can find no update by Arnie, Marlowe or anyone else since then.

 

THAT is my point - you can't enforce a rule that no-one knows about, and you can't CHANGE a rule, not tell anyone, then expect them to follow the new rewritten rule.

 

Some consultation would be nice - I didn't really expect any, but it would be nice. Notice of any changes is the LEAST that should be done, to do otherwise is just plain stupid. If you want to run a forum that's just a playground for the people in charge to do whatever the hell they want, well, that's fine, but the UK already has one of those, and many of the people HERE left THAT forum because of the way they do business.

 

Lastly, I don't see that my perfectly reasonable suggestion - which in no way states or implies that I want to be somehow treated differently or that anything I mention only applies to me - requires a frankly rude reply from the forum staff. If that's the way you want to Mod, then perhaps you're Modding on the wrong forum - on Arnies we used to have a friendly atmosphere, not the Us and Them approach you seem to advocate.

Edited by Hedganian
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nothing to do with me, personally, but it's clearly not right to change the rules without even notifying people they they're GOING to change beforehand.

 

The rule I refer to, there is NO notification of any change, the last update by Arnie himself was in 2005, and I can find no update by Arnie, Marlowe or anyone else since then.

 

THAT is my point - you can't enforce a rule that no-one knows about, and you can't CHANGE a rule, not tell anyone, then expect them to follow the new rewritten rule.

 

Some consultation would be nice - I didn't really expect any, but it would be nice. Notice of any changes is the LEAST that should be done, to do otherwise is just plain stupid. If you want to run a forum that's just a playground for the people in charge to do whatever the hell they want, well, that's fine, but the UK already has one of those, and many of the people HERE left THAT forum because of the way they do business.

 

Lastly, I don't see that my perfectly reasonable suggestion - which in no way states or implies that I want to be somehow treated differently or that anything I mention only applies to me - requires a frankly rude reply from the forum staff. If that's the way you want to Mod, then perhaps you're Modding on the wrong forum - on Arnies we used to have a friendly atmosphere, not the Us and Them approach you seem to advocate.

 

 

Well, you make one good point here; we could do with a concise and up to date version of the rules. However, the rules have hardly changed since they were laid down, so it's a moot point.

 

Thing is, when a rule is changed, an announcement is made, which is normally ignored by all; but that's by the by. The staff of arnies isn't the government, we don't have to discuss openly every new rule we make. When a new one comes into force, the forum is told. That's how it's always operated, and that's how it will always operate. Not just on this forum, but on pretty much every other forum in existence. It's how forums work. They are, without exception (that I know of) based on a dictatorship. However, as I said, when a rule is made or changed, the forum is notified, without exception. We're benevolent, remember.

 

I do like your playground analogy, though; it implies that the moderating team is going around laying down new rules willy-nilly and screwing with the userbase simply because we can. Unfortunately, this just isn't true. The forum has, to be honest, been left to it's own devices for many years. Rules have, as I said, stayed mostly the same. The only major changes were due to the userbase expanding (more americans and people with >1j laws, so 1j rule went) and the VCRA screwing up sales and forcing us to put restrictions on who could buy and sell.

 

Everybody had to put up with these new rules, whether we like it or not, and we had to, to put it bluntly and repeat myself, get used to it or get out. I'm sure some members did indeed leave in disgust at these new rules that were imposed, but the majority realised that it was for the better of the forum.

 

Apologies if you took me being blunt as rudeness, but I'm really not in the mood for farting around with niceties and metaphors. The rules are the rules. Moderators are here to enforce the rules. This isn't going to change any time soon. Again, sorry if you took me being blunt the wrong way, but that's just how things are. Rules don't get discussed openly with the forum, as it'd be chaos if we did, and nothing would ever get done.

 

I suggest you take the night off and calm down, then come back to all of this. Though it may come as some surprise to you, I too once had anarchistic "T3H MODZ AM CORRUPT" views of arnies. The reason I don't any more is I gained maturity and the realisation that what the moderating staff do is for the good of the forum. And, if you reckon me getting a moderating position had anything to do with the change of heart; I got offered the spot about a year after this all went away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which doesn't explain why I can't find a notification about the recent rules change regarding Sig length. Maybe it's there and I've just missed it. If you'd be so good as to post a link to the the notice of the change, I'd be grateful.

 

I assure you that I'm perfectly calm, and that I harbour no anarchistic ideas about the forums, however, there does seem to be a departure from the friendly atmosphere of the past and an increasingly aggressive and confrontational approach amongst the site staff. Which is a shame, in my opinion.

 

EDIT: I just checked the rules section again, I can't find a single post dated more recently than 2005, and I can't see any threads in the Site News section about rules changes or updates. Just where exactly do these notices about rules changes go? You say they're there, and I believe you, but I can't find them.

Edited by Hedganian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Marshal, if you don't mind my analysis, you seem to be supportive of the moderating staff being detached from the community, as Hedge said, the "us and them" approach.

 

Personally, I find that idea quite counterproductive and generally overweight. If the administrative staff is a different society from the one which it is governing, then how can it govern the community efficiently? (See: India under Britain)

 

While both Hedge and I seem to understand that Arnies' is a private community under private ownership, we are aware that it can be run in whatever way "they" (the owner, at its roots) feel it should, however, what I feel hedge was trying to point out was, that if users are going to be reprimanded and generally harassed (via PM) for "breaking a rule," one which even someone whom had read the rules would not have been wise to, as is highlighted by hedge's situation, that they should (emphasis upon "should," not "have a right to be") at least be warned of the change well prior to receiving a "punishment" for it.

Edited by X Lupin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hedge, you've been spoken to before about your signature size and in that thread you did sort of make a big fuss about yourself being above the normal flock didn't you? MDK's post is very tame compared to the ones you made then and many others.

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/inde...howtopic=139613

 

 

Trumph card!

We reserve the right to refuse to publish any advertisement without ascertaining any reason, and to classify, edit and delete at its sole discretion. The placing of any advert is an acceptance of these conditions.

 

(technically it refers to the sales section but same difference.)

 

If a global or admin edits a post or the rules they wouldn't usually leave edit tags or a time stamp, so they could change/update the original post and not notice that they've left no footprint to notify you of a change but people would ignore an announcement if one was made and it really isn't a big one as most members are within this rule's "restrictions".

 

It suggest total sig size can be 300x400(max 100x total images+200x total text), which is larger than the 200px height arnie suggested in 2005 which included text. So rather than resticting your sig size the new rule allows your sig to be bigger.

 

Biggest sig thing lately is the perks project. Alot of members added their "perks" to their existing signatures and made some oversized. Yours was kinda big before but it sounds like a staff member did notify you of the change since you've managed to complain about it.. but thank you for looking out for your fellow members and that includes myself, as I had no idea of the change either and feel totally uneffected by it :/

 

Only effects people with really big signatures like yours was, the ones like catman's were large but contained useful information where as yours is mainly personal. A sig it meant to be just a small insignificant space with something about you or to advertise things and not to be a whole 'nother post of, frankly, useless stuff that gets put up every time you post..

 

Again, nobody reads announcements, nobody cares until it affects them directly *and all you've likely done here is choosen something to vent your frustration on because you don't like being told what you can and can't do on a recognized private forum.

 

 

*I am, rarely, correct when I assume things of course(though I do always assume I'm correct, so I guess it evens things out(in my head at least))

 

Forgotten what I was originally going to do before this thread distracted me..

Edited by Anteater
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused...

 

The rules as stated have been in place since 2004, with the text amendment being 2005. See Arnie's post here.

 

There was no consultation as there were no new rules. I merely incorporated them into the main rules thread (and copied to its mirror) to make it easier to locate them for everyone.

 

As I can see it, therefore, the criticism appears to have been that I've made the rules easier to locate - as it seems, judging by all of the well-intentioned posts above, that I must be the only person to look at the Rules and Regulations forum. :)

 

The global moderators have been discussing new signature rules, but as no agreement has yet been reached (see UN Security Council to get an idea of our speed in resolving these things :D), I decided to at least better integrate what we have for the time being.

 

If you don't feel the current rules reflect your needs, why not post a new thread constructively suggesting what you would want? It's far more likely to secure our cooperation than a rant, and although we do make executive decisions from time to time, we do try to do what folks want - I don't get a kick out of upsetting people, despite what the general consensus appears to be. :)

 

Hope that helps put this storm in a teacup to rest. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So..... There hasn't actually been a change to the rules?

 

In that case, why did someone tell me there had been, and require that I now fit in with the new rules (which apparently aren't the new rules)?

 

I'm very confused.

 

Marlowe - in an attempt to clarify - the criticism (if that's what it is) was, and is, that I was told that there had been a change to the rules, of which I could find no notification or mention, much less discussion. If there has, in fact, been no change, then the only issue remaining is why I was told there was. If there is *GOING* to be a change in the future, then it doesn't seem appropriate to start enforcing it now, before it's happened officially.

 

I hope that makes a bit more sense.

 

Don't get me wrong - a community needs rules. Those rules need to be reviewed to make sure they're still meeting the needs of the community. Those rules have to be enforced, where needed. None of these facts are in dispute.

 

The problem comes when the people enforcing the rules change the rules without telling anyone, and/or enforce rules that aren't supposed to be enforced and/or make up, change or re-interpret the rules to suit themselves.

 

I'm not saying that's what's happening on this forum, but I think we can all agree that we don't WANT it to happen. And that was what I was trying to say in my first post - if there's going to be a change, then we ought to be informed at the very least.

Edited by Hedganian
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm honest Hedge, I think the person who contacted you was well-intentioned but clearly hadn't read the rules and regulations section of the forum here, and so thought the amendments to the rules thread was a new rule, rather than me just integrating Arnie's rules together.

 

I know it's tucked away within the site section, but it's not that hard to find when you look at the available categories. I think in this case a general lack of awareness has left everyone getting their wires crossed and thinking a new rule in place.

 

Just to clarify - there is NO new signature rules - just the old ones. The new rules I have mentioned have not even been agreed upon and so have not been implemented.

 

Hope that helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.