Member Treatment - Are we being fair to the members of the community?

[Jirohnagi]

Except I haven't been the one dredging it up. I got singled out from the start for talking too much about how I felt the wiki was important to the decisions we were making. When I protested I got called a troublemaker for my time. This is exactly the same sort of stuff that happened in that distant past so it's hardly that far behind us. And if we can't admit this kind of thing happened before and still happens now, we're just going to keep having the same problems come back again and again. It's turning out exactly how I said. It's impossible for a target of these things to defend themselves and come out with any self-respect. They get branded an enemy of the state no matter what and it's unfair and I don't think it's unreasonable to protest it. And I don't think constantly reiterating various ways of saying "shut up" is the proper way to deal with this. This is a thread about being fair to the community. If someone thinks they're being treated unfairly, that's a relevant issue and "shut up" is a highly inappropriate way of dealing with it. and I should say that every time this happened in the past, the people trying to silence the complaining rarely were looked fondly of after it was all over. Since that never works, can we just please try to be more mature about this and think of a better response than "stop complaining" please? It isn't helping.

I can see where you are coming from with, you feel like you are being slated and targeted constantly? To be honest i was gonna be off putting about this but no i can't as I've been in that boat before. I think maybe you Nate and Jimmy need to have a private conversation and get this all out in the open instead of the forums for the simple fact you have idiots such as me misconstruing it. But i think the biggest thing is and should always be, IF a member feel threatened in anyway shape or form then it's the admins/mods duties to look into these threats and the like. If not it does show a hell of a lot of either deniability (they don't want to get into crap) or incompetence. I think Matt you do have the right to voice your opinions as much as anyone else here, i don't know why people are targeting you for anything in all honesty you seem like a nice dude to chat to, but i want to say one thing, the fact that people have taken after you for your, love of your hobby/job, what you see as your own duty of care, whatever, then you do seriously need to have a sit down with Jimmy (specifically jimmy as in my experience he doesn't judge too quickly giving himself time to think) and sort it out. Granted this might not work out as intended but in this life not all things are as we can expect.

 

[Jirohnagi]

Not much I can say, my points are just flying over your head at this point. Never said it was irrelevant. Never said don't defend yourself. It's the WAY you are doing it that I think is causing a problem. The approaches I suggest are defending it - it's defending it by proxy. You're just going about your day and not letting it get to you. Though, that doesn't make them irrelevant - you have to consider why they feel that way instead of defending like crazy. Sometimes, there is no defense. You're simply wrong and you have to accept that and learn from it. I haven't seen you able to admit you were wrong yet, even as you derailed a thread.

Much respect Matt. You do some fantastic work. But honestly, if what I am saying isn't sinking in, I can't do much to help you out. You ultimately control you. What you've been doing (and is apparent) for years hasn't been working. I am suggesting a different approach. You don't have to do it, but doing the same thing defending yourself and expecting differnt end results... didn't that once get called the definition of insanity? You're not insane, but you can't seem to recognize what you've been doing isn't working. That's on you.

I think 1) matt is overly invested (emotionally and his job title) but i do agree with him here it's not just his job to stop that type of thing, it'll be nice to have more people and more specifically someone whose not been with us all the time to see what goes on if you get what i mean. Chances are you might catch something the others don't

 

[Guest_1]

Here's the thing- reputations are things of our own creation. If someone is unwilling or unable to see how their actions affect other people, then there is nothing we can do. The best course of action is to simply not let what other people say bother you and move on.

At this point, let us not make this thread into something it isn't. This isn't about silencing ideas or opinions. This is about behavior, especially behavior of staff, that has been allowed to go on for some time. If a staff member is unable to take criticism for his or her behavior, then at this point, one would also have to question whether or not that person is fit for their position any longer. However, that too is a conversation for another day. You can have an idea. You can have an opinion. You can't shove those ideas or opinions down people's throats by harassing them in a thread until they get tired of responding, nor can you derail a thread by spewing things that ultimately don't matter.

There's two ways to go about responding to criticism—you can go on acting like you're a repressed victim and make everyone dislike you even more, or you can read what they're saying carefully, reflect on it, and change your behavior. At the heart of it all, most of us want certain behaviors to stop. We want the toxic arguments to stop. We want the thread derailments to stop. That's all anyone participating in this thread has ever wanted.

Thank you very much for your responses, Nate. They really hit the nail right on the head.

Does anyone else have any more suggestions they wish to share regarding the rules?

 

[Nathanial Rumphol-Janc]

Thank you very much for your responses, Nate. They really hit the nail right on the head.

Does anyone else have any more suggestions they wish to share regarding the rules?

No problem. Honestly, I just want a fair and open community for all, staff and members alike. My stuff with Matt here is just my sincere way of trying to help him see a different side and try something new versus banging his head against the wall. It probably won't work.

But yeah, keep it going folks. This i very educational for me too, learning what this community feels is unfair treatment.

 

[Emma]

Not much I can say, my points are just flying over your head at this point. Never said it was irrelevant. Never said don't defend yourself. It's the WAY you are doing it that I think is causing a problem. The approaches I suggest are defending it - it's defending it by proxy. You're just going about your day and not letting it get to you. Though, that doesn't make them irrelevant - you have to consider why they feel that way instead of defending like crazy. Sometimes, there is no defense. You're simply wrong and you have to accept that and learn from it. I haven't seen you able to admit you were wrong yet, even as you derailed a thread.

We strongly disagree on the derailment part. There was an issue I felt was important and you didn't want it discussed when it wasn't your place to say what can and couldn't be. Especially when that thread was made by a member of this site about their concerns, and not by you. If you started that thread, then you saying "this isn't relevant" would have carried more weight. But as it stands, you simply appeared to have used your influence to try to bury an issue you didn't want discussed. I won't "admit I'm wrong" when I wasn't just to make people feel better. And I doubt you've read all my posts in these threads because I very clearly discussed where I was wrong. A speciifc case was with Jamie and what his role was in the big issues we had last year. I even publcily apologized to him several times about my being mistaken. So I would very much appreciate it if you would please stop saying I haven't done that when I very clearly did, plain for all to see.

Much respect Matt. You do some fantastic work. But honestly, if what I am saying isn't sinking in, I can't do much to help you out. You ultimately control you. What you've been doing (and is apparent) for years hasn't been working. I am suggesting a different approach. You don't have to do it, but doing the same thing defending yourself and expecting differnt end results... didn't that once get called the definition of insanity? You're not insane, but you can't seem to recognize what you've been doing isn't working. That's on you.

I did say, more than once, that I don't completely disagree. I do think in an entirely private situation with no personal investment, that it's entirely right. Someone calls me a PoS on a comments section on a YouTube video discussing a current issue because they don't agree with my opinion? Pfft, what do I care? I do exactly what you have been saying, moved on with my life without giving them the time of day or a second thought.

But you know full well that that's an entirely different situation from this. This is important to me. Paid job or passionate hobby, it means the same. I've dedicated years of my life to it and being able to do that actually helped me get out of a depression. It's not something I can simply just ignore. It's not a passing moronic insult from a YouTube comment troglodyte. It's from people I have to be around all the time that I can't simply just ignore. Especially when I have responsibilities.

Here's the thing- reputations are things of our own creation. If someone is unwilling or unable to see how their actions affect other people, then there is nothing we can do. The best course of action is to simply not let what other people say bother you and move on.

At this point, let us not make this thread into something it isn't. This isn't about silencing ideas or opinions. This is about behavior, especially behavior of staff, that has been allowed to go on for some time. If a staff member is unable to take criticism for his or her behavior, then at this point, one would also have to question whether or not that person is fit for their position any longer. However, that too is a conversation for another day. You can have an idea. You can have an opinion. You can't shove those ideas or opinions down people's throats by harassing them in a thread until they get tired of responding, nor can you derail a thread by spewing things that ultimately don't matter.

There's two ways to go about responding to criticism—you can go on acting like you're a repressed victim and make everyone dislike you even more, or you can read what they're saying carefully, reflect on it, and change your behavior. At the heart of it all, most of us want certain behaviors to stop. We want the toxic arguments to stop. We want the thread derailments to stop. That's all anyone participating in this thread has ever wanted.

Thank you very much for your responses, Nate. They really hit the nail right on the head.

Since you opened this thread with very personal insults directed squarely at me, I think it's very much a part of it. If you didn't want it to be discussed, you shouldn't have made the insults.
Instead of "stop derailing threads, you're being a problem!" how about a nice simple "hey, Matt, I'm sorry I made those assumptions about you and dragged them into this conversation to make my point. I appologize, I would really like to discuss these things here instead, could we do that?" Something to that effect. It's polite, and it alleviates the anger that the initial comments instigated, and it moves the topic forward in a direction you're looking for without making anyone feel threatened or cornered.

Does anyone else have any more suggestions they wish to share regarding the rules?

I think the ZD rules as they stand are suitable for our needs. What is lacking is clear and proper language that they fully apply to staff too and that they will not be an exception. That simple change can address the bulk of these concerns without a major rewrite. As far as additions are concerned, I think we need to add something about both staff and regular members giving each other the benefit of the doubt. When things start to look heated, people should try to not assume the worst in each other and instead try to focus on the topic. Most of our problems and dramas come out of someone assuming something about someone, insulting them over it, and then a stupid back and forth, such as the one we've been enjoying here, that only ends with both sides being pissed off and thinking much less of each other. And both feeling entirely justified in thinking how irrational and unreasonable the other is being. And how exactly does that help us in the slightest? Some caution and benefit of the doubt can go a long way. For staff, they should be encouraged to tell people who are complaining to be more calm, and they should not jump to conclusions about people too quickly. It's a simple addition that could help us a lot.

 

[Nathanial Rumphol-Janc]

We strongly disagree on the derailment part. There was an issue I felt was important and you didn't want it discussed when it wasn't your place to say what can and couldn't be. Especially when that thread was made by a member of this site about their concerns, and not by you. If you started that thread, then you saying "this isn't relevant" would have carried more weight. But as it stands, you simply appeared to have used your influence to try to bury an issue you didn't want discussed. I won't "admit I'm wrong" when I wasn't just to make people feel better. And I doubt you've read all my posts in these threads because I very clearly discussed where I was wrong. A speciifc case was with Jamie and what his role was in the big issues we had last year. I even publcily apologized to him several times about my being mistaken. So I would very much appreciate it if you would please stop saying I haven't done that when I very clearly did, plain for all to see.

*sigh* Even the OP guy admitted it got off topic. He just wished the mod team dealt with it differently so it didn't need to be locked. :/ Not sure what to tell you. You were one of the reasons the thread was shut down. You won't admit to your role in that and it's fine. Honestly, when I suggested the thread be shut down, it wasn't even about me. I wasn't even involved in the convo anymore. It was getting into personal back and forth attacks between you and others and bringing up the past, lying, etc. When it was a thread about the merger and concerns with it - not about past drama at ZD. I didn't make it about that. You brought it up, others corrected you, and arguing ensued. It was derailment at it's finest (note, I didn't say you were alone).

I did say, more than once, that I don't completely disagree. I do think in an entirely private situation with no personal investment, that it's entirely right. Someone calls me a PoS on a comments section on a YouTube video discussing a current issue because they don't agree with my opinion? Pfft, what do I care? I do exactly what you have been saying, moved on with my life without giving them the time of day or a second thought.

But you know full well that that's an entirely different situation from this. This is important to me. Paid job or passionate hobby, it means the same. I've dedicated years of my life to it and being able to do that actually helped me get out of a depression. It's not something I can simply just ignore. It's not a passing moronic insult from a YouTube comment troglodyte. It's from people I have to be around all the time that I can't simply just ignore. Especially when I have responsibilities.

The thing is, I am the public face of a huge site. I am more invested into the well-being of ZI than probably anyone else, even Mases who owns the joint. Yet I also know I can't publicly "defend" like you do. It doesn't do anything but make myself and the place I represent look bad. Your responsibilities are to make the wiki and the community surrounding the wiki appealing. Your constant defense mode is not doing that.

It took me YEARS to figure out that part of the problem with ZI's reputation was my inability to accept we did something wrong in the first place and my entire attitude that I need to constantly defend it against people I have conversed and worked with for years. The moment I stopped arguing and defending and just started addressing the concerns is the moment ZI turned everything around.

 

[DARK MASTER]

I understand some may not agree with this, but I feel it needs to be said for fairness sake.

While Matt does, derail, escalate, insult, and/or over exaggerate (and some good things), Matt hasn’t created any real problem (until recently) in the last five months, so like, we should give the man give his credit… Making this a “Matt centric” thread especially after he apologized may derail the very thread intended to be about derailment (believe me I realize this thread was about more).

This thread from what I understand was about how “higher level” staffers shouldn’t have special protection from the rules, which if so I think thread accomplished its goal by making our feelings known to fellow members and staff.

We should be proud of our progress everyone. ^^

 

[Emma]

*sigh* Even the OP guy admitted it got off topic. He just wished the mod team dealt with it differently so it didn't need to be locked. :/ Not sure what to tell you. You were one of the reasons the thread was shut down. You won't admit to your role in that and it's fine. Honestly, when I suggested the thread be shut down, it wasn't even about me. I wasn't even involved in the convo anymore. It was getting into personal back and forth attacks between you and others and bringing up the past, lying, etc. When it was a thread about the merger and concerns with it - not about past drama at ZD. I didn't make it about that. You brought it up, others corrected you, and arguing ensued. It was derailment at it's finest (note, I didn't say you were alone).

We're never going to agree on this. And I don't see how continuing to fight about it is going to help anything. Instead of trying to last word it, we should just drop the derailment thing, we have entirely different philosophies on how to handle it that are not compatible (mine more hands off, yours more hands on) and arguing about it won't help.

The thing is, I am the public face of a huge site. I am more invested into the well-being of ZI than probably anyone else, even Mases who owns the joint. Yet I also know I can't publicly "defend" like you do. It doesn't do anything but make myself and the place I represent look bad. Your responsibilities are to make the wiki and the community surrounding the wiki appealing. Your constant defense mode is not doing that.

It took me YEARS to figure out that part of the problem with ZI's reputation was my inability to accept we did something wrong in the first place and my entire attitude that I need to constantly defend it against people I have conversed and worked with for years. The moment I stopped arguing and defending and just started addressing the concerns is the moment ZI turned everything around.

Thing is everyone is unique. If this change helped you, great. Fantastic. More power to you. But it's not going to automatically apply to everyone else. One of my big concerns is how people are treated. I'm by no means the only victim of this kind of mistreatment. Shutting up about my own personal persecution isn't going to help the other people being targeted. And I absolutely refuse to sit by and do nothing when other people are being hurt and my own inaction is helping it happen. Too much we try to get the last word and the satisfaction of being right, being the winner, and triumphing over evil. When in reality usually a more mundane "agree to disagree, sorry for the mess" is a more appropriate way to end things instead of barbing insults of how you're not helping your situation, digging a bigger hole, or anything. I DON'T see things the way you do, I do not and will never agree to these kind of ideas for this situation. Trading barbs is only going to make things more bitter and I don't want that. Especially when we have to work together. Maybe you should take your own advice and just "leave it alone" instead of trying to point out how bad I am and how I shouldn't be responding to these things. It's only going to complicate things.

I think we can do better and get things moving forward. We just have to stop this competitive nonsense. No one say they won a debate. Just a simple, hey let's move on, no hard feelings, no harsh words, cool? Is that so hard?

 

[Guest_1]

*sigh* Even the OP guy admitted it got off topic. He just wished the mod team dealt with it differently so it didn't need to be locked. :/ Not sure what to tell you. You were one of the reasons the thread was shut down. You won't admit to your role in that and it's fine. Honestly, when I suggested the thread be shut down, it wasn't even about me. I wasn't even involved in the convo anymore. It was getting into personal back and forth attacks between you and others and bringing up the past, lying, etc. When it was a thread about the merger and concerns with it - not about past drama at ZD. I didn't make it about that. You brought it up, others corrected you, and arguing ensued. It was derailment at it's finest (note, I didn't say you were alone)

All I'm going to say is this- if certain parties wish to live their lives pretending they are a victim, then there isn't much you can do. If they don't want to do the mature thing and sincerely admit they screwed up, then that's their prerogative. We've accomplished a lot in this thread, let's not do the very thing that sparked this discussion to begin with, even though I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said here.

The thing is, I am the public face of a huge site. I am more invested into the well-being of ZI than probably anyone else, even Mases who owns the joint. Yet I also know I can't publicly "defend" like you do. It doesn't do anything but make myself and the place I represent look bad. Your responsibilities are to make the wiki and the community surrounding the wiki appealing. Your constant defense mode is not doing that.

Actions do speak louder that words, I will admit that.

It took me YEARS to figure out that part of the problem with ZI's reputation was my inability to accept we did something wrong in the first place and my entire attitude that I need to constantly defend it against people I have conversed and worked with for years. The moment I stopped arguing and defending and just started addressing the concerns is the moment ZI turned everything around.

Here's something else to consider, too—when you are constantly trying to defend yourself, it can make other people feel like you've got something to hide. I'm glad you've realized better, thanks for your honesty.

At this point, unless anyone else has anything constructive to share with regards to closing the loopholes present in the current rules, I think we're finished here. Thank you staff for looking into this and addressing the concerns I brought up in this thread.

 

[DARK MASTER]

I think we can do better and get things moving forward. We just have to stop this competitive nonsense. No one say they won a debate. Just a simple, hey let's move on, no hard feelings, no harsh words, cool? Is that so hard?

I do think we should focus on productive conversation and not petty social ****ty bull****.

 

[Nathanial Rumphol-Janc]

I understand some may not agree with this, but I feel it needs to be said for fairness sake.

While Matt does, derail, escalate, insult, and/or over exaggerate (and some good things), Matt hasn’t created any real problem (until recently) in the last five months, so like, we should give the man give his credit… Making this a “Matt centric” thread especially after he apologized may derail the very thread intended to be about derailment (believe me I realize this thread was about more).

This thread from what I understand was about how “higher level” staffers shouldn’t have special protection from the rules, which if so I think thread accomplished its goal by making our feelings known to fellow members and staff.

We should be proud of our progress everyone. ^^

Indeed. I think this has been a productive thread all around personally.

Thing is everyone is unique. If this change helped you, great. Fantastic. More power to you. But it's not going to automatically apply to everyone else. One of my big concerns is how people are treated. I'm by no means the only victim of this kind of mistreatment. Shutting up about my own personal persecution isn't going to help the other people being targeted. And I absolutely refuse to sit by and do nothing when other people are being hurt and my own inaction is helping it happen. Too much we try to get the last word and the satisfaction of being right, being the winner, and triumphing over evil. When in reality usually a more mundane "agree to disagree, sorry for the mess" is a more appropriate way to end things instead of barbing insults of how you're not helping your situation, digging a bigger hole, or anything. I DON'T see things the way you do, I do not and will never agree to these kind of ideas for this situation. Trading barbs is only going to make things more bitter and I don't want that. Especially when we have to work together. Maybe you should take your own advice and just "leave it alone" instead of trying to point out how bad I am and how I shouldn't be responding to these things. It's only going to complicate things.

I think we can do better and get things moving forward. We just have to stop this competitive nonsense. No one say they won a debate. Just a simple, hey let's move on, no hard feelings, no harsh words, cool? Is that so hard?

What I suggested isn't trading barbs. You defending yourself so much is actually a form of trading barbs and creating that back and forth situation that doesn't make anyone look good. My ideas are all about self improvement that makes these situations vanish organically. It treats the cause, not the symtoms. Arguing, going back and forth, it;s all causation of the fact that you rubbed people the wrong way. Until you decide it's time to step up and fix that, nothing is going to change. This attitude does work for more than just me. It's something a physiologist teaches at times. If people constantly paint you as something, you might want to consider why and change something about how you act in order to no longer get treated that way. That way, if you're doing things that don't confirm those complaints anymore and they still continuously push it - those people become the real problem and they are the ones dealt with. My argument is against fighting fire with fire. Your approach, whether you realize it or not, does just that.

Anyways, this has been a really productive thread. I can't guarantee anything changes at all. But I am glad concerns are out in the open.

 

[Emma]

Indeed. I think this has been a productive thread all around personally.



What I suggested isn't trading barbs. You defending yourself so much is actually a form of trading barbs and creating that back and forth situation that doesn't make anyone look good. My ideas are all about self improvement that makes these situations vanish organically. It treats the cause, not the symtoms. Arguing, going back and forth, it;s all causation of the fact that you rubbed people the wrong way. Until you decide it's time to step up and fix that, nothing is going to change. This attitude does work for more than just me. It's something a physiologist teaches at times. If people constantly paint you as something, you might want to consider why and change something about how you act in order to no longer get treated that way. That way, if you're doing things that don't confirm those complaints anymore and they still continuously push it - those people become the real problem and they are the ones dealt with. My argument is against fighting fire with fire. Your approach, whether you realize it or not, does just that.

Anyways, this has been a really productive thread. I can't guarantee anything changes at all. But I am glad concerns are out in the open.

I explicitly asked there be no final insults. Saying "you can't accept that you're hurting yourself" is a final insult. I don't agree, I thought that was clear. We don't look at this the same way. No more getting last words in this please? I'm a bit perturbed how both of you felt the need to point out how you're still right and that I can't accept the harm I'm doing immediately after I suggested that it's a bad idea to keep trading insults like that. I'm not seeing how this helps. We're never, ever going to agree. No more of this. You agree to drop it without a final jab, I won't mention it again. All I am saying here is that we don't agree, and I think we can agree we don't agree and can agree to disagree so we don't have to bother with again.

We do have business to discuss after all, lets get into it.

On point, about the rules. I've noticed a huge problem with them during the course of this whole mess. Accessibility to the rules themselves. In the past there was a simple, obvious link at the top of the layout. In the current default ZD theme, there's not a quick, obvious link to it in the layout like there was before, instead its buried at the very very bottom of the page by copyright information no one cares about and in most cases people will not see that. I think that's as serious problem that is going to give us issues. There needs to be a clear link to it at the top.

And a couple other things. The "keep it clean" rule is rather outdated and isn't reflecting how we currently handle that. We don't really watch our language anymore. And it's not enforced. And I do not think we can safely go back to it being so rigidly enforced. People will not accept it. We should change that, make it more clear that it should be "within reason" rather than "none at all" or something like that. And housekeeping, we don't need that section. Thread necromancy is not an issue worth even mentioning in there. Very, very few threads are actually an issue if they're brought back. And usually the ones that are are things in future games sections that no longer mean anything once the game is out. Like speculation threads or things like that. In most cases, other kinds of necromancy is never worth bothering to think about because it doesn't hurt anyone and allowing it encourages more discussion.

I also think we need to remove the reference to IP bans in the duplicate accounts entry. IP bans don't really help. They are never that effective at stopping someone who is determined and they usually have unintended victims. Most IPs are shared among a household, so you target anyone else in that home that might want to join. Some colleges have one IP to an entire dorm building or a whole campus so you can affect all of them (colleges rely on MAC addresses to identify users, not IP addresses). Some middle east countries have one IP for the whole nation. My IP for instance is changed every once and a while because my ISP likes to rotate its IPs among its customers and sometimes that means I share an IP that someone else had or will have. And since it changes, an IP ban will not accomplish much with me but is going to victimize every single person who has used it or may use it in the future who might want to join. For comparison, we only use IP bans on the wiki as an emergency stopgap measure against spammers, that's it, and even then we're very, very strict on the matter, making sure that all the IP bans are temporary and expire within three months. We never delude ourselves into thinking it'll stop the spammers, just hoping it'll give us a temporary breather. Which was essential back in the days where we'd get upwards of 40+ spammers per day. With only Locke and myself at the helm handling them back then, that was agonizing for both of us. It's not going to help us here to have it labeled as a punishment being threatened when really it won't do anything for us but cause problems to innocent people and being only mildly irritating, but not stopping, those it's meant to affect.

Oh, and speaking of what I mentioned about households. We should say something about how multiple people from the same households are welcomed to join with their own accounts but each of them are responsible for maintaining security of their accounts and in the event that another person in their home gains access to their account and abuses it that they are responsible. Something to that effect.

 

[Nathanial Rumphol-Janc]

On point, about the rules. I've noticed a huge problem with them during the course of this whole mess. Accessibility to the rules themselves. In the past there was a simple, obvious link at the top of the layout. In the current default ZD theme, there's not a quick, obvious link to it in the layout like there was before, instead its buried at the very very bottom of the page by copyright information no one cares about and in most cases people will not see that. I think that's as serious problem that is going to give us issues. There needs to be a clear link to it at the top.

Or bottom. In IPB you can actually just have the rules listed as an announcement on every single forum too.

I just also want to note that I think IP bans are essential. The issues you bring up are extremely rare and can be dealt with on a case by case situation. But, most people don't actually know how to get around IP bans, nor do they care. Heck, most internet users aren't even aware of what an IP is. That's why the bans are far more effective than simply "banning a freely made username" when they do know how to resign up the boards.

Oh, and speaking of what I mentioned about households. We should say something about how multiple people from the same households are welcomed to join with their own accounts but each of them are responsible for maintaining security of their accounts and in the event that another person in their home gains access to their account and abuses it that they are responsible. Something to that effect.

Not sure what multiple users in the same household has to do with this. This is a general responsibility of ALL users. Can't tell you how many times in the past a user left their account open on their computer and a parent/sibling came in and start posting under it. All users should be responsible for the security of their accounts. That's how the world works. Same reason you shouldn't stay logged in on public computers when you get up, even if it's to use the bathroom. I agree here in general, but it should be a note to all, not just those in the same house. Thought a note that if multiple people in teh same house want to post here they should have their own accounts is fine (if that doesn't already exist).

 

[Emma]

Or bottom. In IPB you can actually just have the rules listed as an announcement on every single forum too.

I just also want to note that I think IP bans are essential. The issues you bring up are extremely rare and can be dealt with on a case by case situation. But, most people don't actually know how to get around IP bans, nor do they care. Heck, most internet users aren't even aware of what an IP is. That's why the bans are far more effective than simply "banning a freely made username" when they do know how to resign up the boards.

Um... except that they're not extremely rare? Most people share an IP with other people. Very few people live alone, and even ones that do often don't have the same IP all the time. There is no sane reason to ban an IP. It accomplishes nothing. It doesn't stop a problem. It won't deter anyone. The only thing it can even apply to is abusing multiple accounts, which IS incredibly rare. It almost never happens. Having an obsession with IP bans when they can only apply in a stupidly rare case... it just is crazy. And besides that, in the cases of alternate account abuse, where you'd even think about that, the people doing that will be far more likely to know how to bypass it.

Insisting on IP bans when they accomplish nothing and almost certainly will have unintended consequences just makes it look like all you care about is pure punishment and not actually effective management and that's entirely antithetical to the atmosphere ZD has tried to cultivate over the years. If you want to work with us, you're going to have to drop that attitude. We DO NOT take excessive corrective actions that can have collateral damage. Even thread locking has become rare. That last one never would have been had you not pulled a string to make it happen. And even then the exact same topic was immediately recreated. Despite the futility of bothering to lock it, it was at least attempted to keep the damage to the minimum. The idea is not to punish and control people, it is to keep things safe and orderly. The right way. Punishment is a very last resort. It should never be considered as a first course of action. The first thing that should be done is for mods to use their humanity to solve a problem. It's like a cop with a gun. Yes they should carry it and know how to use it, but it's an absolute last resort when there simply is no other way. If punishment is what you want, you are not going to get along with our staff because they've been through a lot of trouble over the years fighting with people who essentially got aroused by punishing people and went out of their way to do it. that's not what any of this is about.

Not sure what multiple users in the same household has to do with this. This is a general responsibility of ALL users. Can't tell you how many times in the past a user left their account open on their computer and a parent/sibling came in and start posting under it. All users should be responsible for the security of their accounts. That's how the world works. Same reason you shouldn't stay logged in on public computers when you get up, even if it's to use the bathroom. I agree here in general, but it should be a note to all, not just those in the same house. Thought a note that if multiple people in teh same house want to post here they should have their own accounts is fine (if that doesn't already exist).

It is a relevant issue. Just because it should be common sense doesn't mean that we shouldn't point it out. If we didn't, people could say they can't be held responsible for the actions of people who used their account without their permission, And they would be right. If we don't explicitly mention something in the rules, it cannot be enforced, no exceptions. It doesn't matter how good of an idea it seems or how many people agree it sounds fitting for a given situation. If it's not explicitly laid out in the rules, so people can have the opportunity to know about it, you cannot enforce it on them. Every single time we've tried otherwise, the people who did it became abusive and started making excuse after excuse to punish people for "rules" that didn't exist that they simply just made up because they either didn't like someone or just thought it'd be fun.

 

[Jamie]

On ZD, we have a system whereby if a user joins with the same IP as a banned user, it alerts the staff. They can then make a judgment based on all of the information they have if it is an alternate account or not (it almost always is). We only ever IP banned in very extreme situations where people are, as Matt alluded to, creating multiple accounts over and over. But even then, quite unnecessary with this alert system.