Forum bans

I never suggested any foul play - but it's pretty clear some mods are overly sensitive; it's obviously not foul play, it's an issue of subjectivity with the vagueness of the rules.

You can construe my words in any way you wish, but quite simply: the forums are, imo, patrolled and controlled far too rigorously.

Enfield Rovers FC wrote:

I never suggested any foul play - but it's pretty clear some mods are overly sensitive; it's obviously not foul play, it's an issue of subjectivity with the vagueness of the rules.

You can construe my words in any way you wish, but quite simply: the forums are, imo, patrolled and controlled far too rigorously.

For example:
§2. Etiquette
2.1. Tone
All communication must be in a considerate, respectful tone and must not be condescending, threatening, nor offensive.

"All communication...must not be condescending..." - according to who? Does this include sarcasm/ irony/ general banter? You can make the common sense argument, but as soon as you do it becomes a subjective issue. The rules are far too vague. Try and find a law this vague; you never will.

§6. Forum

6.2. Behavior
Be respectful to other users and to the Virtual Manager crew. Inappropriate behavior is not allowed.This includes, but is not limited to inappropriate language, swearing, defamation, discrimination of race, gender or sexual orientation, etc.

6.4. Judgment
In every case of "inappropriate content", " inappropriate behavior", " inappropriate language" etc. members of the Virtual Manager crew will make the final judgment on what is considered inappropriate. Attempts to subvert this judgment may result in a forum ban.

- "VM crew make the final judgment on what is considered inappropriate" - 100% subjective; you may as well remove the points regarding behaviour if it comes down to the judgment of moderator.

You may say this forum is/ has always been moderated perfectly well, but that assumes all the moderators over the past however many years these rules have been in place have been reasonable in their judgment.
Equally, where are your stats/facts regarding the "good" moderation of the forums, even when it was busier than it is now. Perhaps poor moderation prevented the forums from being even busier than they were back when player numbers where higher. I know this is all conjecture, but it's the same logic you're using against our issues regarding oversensitivity.

I've been in scientific academia for the past 5 years and have no idea how you can quantify the effect of poor quality moderation on forum use, so please don't ask me to quote fact. I just know that these rules are far too vague and provide far too wide a scope for oversensitivity.

I really enjoy this game and believe it has huge potential to involve 1000s more players; I believe the non-specificity of the forum rules may lead to reduced immersiveness of this game to players, new and old. This discourages players from engaging with game and may lead to players leaving more readily.

/

Sorry for the rant.

And that's your opinion.

I think the rules are fine, which is my opinion.

You have yet to provide any evidence on your actual problems. You want the rules changed, but it's based on just your opinion of them.
All it is at the moment, is you don't agree with the rules, so let's change them, abit silly don't you think?

Most people have no issues with following the rules, and the fact there's literally no example why they should change other than you don't agree, makes this thread just about what people do and don't like.

" I think the rules are fine, which is my opinion"

Do you have any facts to back that up? No? Bit silly to continue in that way then.

I can't give specific examples because I don't keep track. I personally think the reason Stalybridge was banned was a bit harsh - I've seen what he posted that was considered spam. Anyone can go have a look.

But I've told you my issue - the rules are vague. You cannot prove factually that forum activity could have been greater with better moderation in the past. It's almost completely unquantifiable; why do you continue to use that as an argument?

I'll say it again so you might address it - the rules are vague.

For you to say they aren't just because noone is actively challenging it all the time is a bit ridiculous. I'm challenging it. People are challenging it off and on throughout the forums.

Again, you'll never find a law or professional code as vague and open to subjective interpretation from those who enforce them in any other situation.

I think the rules should be made more specific.

/

interesting read - I like the game as well, wish it well

Yet again, thats your opinion.

We are all entitled to one, you think they're vague, I think they're fine.

Staylebridge has been banned numerous times, he doesn't follow the rules at all, you make think his ban is harsh, I think it's fully warranted, again, differing opinions.

I asked you to go over to I/D and put your ideas in, yet nothing, you talk about vague, thats what your request is.

Be more specific it what you actually want changing.