BuzzerBeater Forums

Well I have found that as long as you follow the rules of the game and the forum you're in no way near any GM punishment.
If you start going off topic a lot or trolling or use foul language often you may end up under a GM's looking-glass.
Most users will never have this happen though.
And the "punishment" should be scaled on how far you have stepped over the line. So again most users won't ever see big "punishments".

I don't really agree, but I've tried to make my point so won't repeat it.

What many seem to forget is that far from everyone has English as their first language so that someone reads a post in another way then was intended may not be very strange.

Since you've replied to me I'll assume you mean me. I can't say any more than that it is not the case. I'm well aware that not everyone's first language is English, and have said so in posts before. In fact, I have relatives whose first language isn't English. I find it insulting if that is your assumption about me. If not, then I apologise for saying so.

Then a small question to the negative once. How do you think this game would look like if we didn't have users that invested their own free time into keeping this game as fair as possible?

I'm not going to answer that as I never asked for the removal of GMs so its a pointless question.

I believe there is far to much negative words going towards GM's.

Possibly true, but I believe everything I type. And I don't post thoughtlessly.

If they weren't here we would see a lot of unfair things happening.

Fair enough.

That is true, but a bit or sarcasm is needed to keep doing that job voluntarily. That is why sometimes I may go a bit too far, but I try not to and went to the extent of not posting what I wrote or deleting some of my own messages.

Same applies for me as a user, but unfortunately "you guys" (as I don't see who constantly deletes my posts) go as far as necessary. I even discussed that with Ryan who seems to be the most reasonable official I met in years and still not much has changed.

I'm not in favor of overmoderating, only partially because of the extra work it might create for me. People should be encouraged to enjoy the forums, not run every post through some content analysis algorithm to see if it contributes some meaningful purpose to the game.

I suppose we could also be harsher on "irritating" or "trolling" posts. But it's also a judgment call. In nearly every case, there is very wide latitude given.

That preaching water and drinking wine. As usual, double standards are applied whenever it suits you best. Like Lemonshine said, there were absolutely abysmal GMs, who were lauded as the cream of the crop of the BB-universe, just because. A bit more reflection on behalf of the staff would be welcome. But as soon as somebody switches the side every critizism is treatened like a personal attack. You need to detach from that.

Then a small question to the negative once. How do you think this game would look like if we didn't have users that invested their own free time into keeping this game as fair as possible?

What if they invest their free time? They still have a duty towards everyone else, once they accept the job, and the rest of us deserve some assurances.

I counter your question and raise you with one of my own: what did you think would happen if you opened a global channel in the chat, as I proposed? I seem to remember some american GM saying it would be completely wild and unruly because it's not moderated. Now the Global channel is real: go and see if that's the scaremongering had any substance to it.

I understand you all have a very high opinion of yourselves, that's not the issue here. I have a problem that 20k other users need to believe you without knowing anything of how you operate and knowing that the only safeguard is an appeal system which is only available when the matter has already been ruled upon and is also handled by you.

Again tell me what is wrong specifically with having a policy that a different GM will take a look and make a decision. Because, you know, this is the topic of this thread and the nature of my suggestion. It's beyond me that both current and past GMs are repeatingly going off-topic because they feel somehow attacked when this is not about them, but about the rest of us 20k users. Let's all believe that all GMs do an amazing job and never make a mistake (I personally disagree as we all have our stories to tell): what would cost you to have a policy which says you need to step back when your actions could be seen as biased based on your nationality and/or the people involved?

"Yes, that is true. Let's do that". Interestingly enough, that is already the case. So like people would have to believe us with that change, they have to believe us that is already the case. Extending the "personal" part to not handling cases in relation with someone from the same country is foolish.

No it's not. My example, although not subtle was very clear. A GM is a member of a community and when 2 community clash on something, he should think that his actions are likely to be viewed as personal and should not get involved beyond moderating posts (if that).

Besides if you have these rules of conduct for you GMs, then wouldn't it be a good idea to reassure people that you have some rules of conduct to protect the regular users beyond appeals, that they are written, that you are held accountable by someone? Frankly I do not see the point of keeping this information secret to prevent cheating, but this is beyond the scope of my suggestion.

If someone wants to know why his OWN message has been deleted, feel free to send me a message and I'll give a look and an answer. Feeling that the decision was wrong doesn't mean the decision was wrong though. Keep also in mind that context matters. Repeat offenders will have a shorter leash (let's be honest here). Tense threads or strong reactions between some users will see actions from moderation while a joke or a misplaced sarcasm in an otherwise calm thread may have better chance of survival.

Note that in 1 year time you might be done with the game and the rest of us still here might have different GMs to deal with. Said people might not be as nice as you and might follow the rules to the letter. You fail to factor in that you personally do more for the community than it's required by your role (and yes there is praise in there somewhere), others might not be as nice.

However, if the rules state that you shouldn't get involved in a series of situations, then it's there, it's written, it applies to all the current 28 and whoever will come after.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/9/2016 4:12:32 AM

My, my, Manon so bitter. First we have hrudey, now you...

I go in order, I replied to Perpete too and you can read there why I'm not satisfied. I hope this satisfy you.

REASON 1

A GM is a member of a community and when 2 community clash on something, he should think that his actions are likely to be viewed as personal and should not get involved beyond moderating posts (if that).

REASON 2

in 1 year time you might be done with the game and the rest of us still here might have different GMs to deal with. Said people might not be as nice as you and might follow the rules to the letter. You fail to factor in that you personally do more for the community than it's required by your role

So, as you see, it's not the same, hence the proposal. If you think that situation 1 is already covered somewhere by some written policy do tell us. If you think Perpete involvement does not go beyond what is required of a normal GM under current policy do tell us.

Otherwise just say: I agree that in cases involving 2 national communities a GM of one of those communities should not get involved. And this should be made clear in the (secret) rules of conduct which all GMs need to follow.

The only logical alternative is that the appeal system is the way to go, but the problem with that is that GMs themselves don't see this issue as a problem and therefore the appeal system would be useless for this.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/9/2016 5:55:49 AM

And also as i now have said numerous times when it comes to a personal involvement(many times that the GM is from the same country) the GM asks for another GM to deal with the case.

Look I can't say why or I will be banned, but let me say I disagree here.

The fact he uses sarcasm and occasionally uses inappropriate language is something i have just as much acceptance for as i have with any other user that posts in the forums when i moderate.

And if you noticed I didn't follow up on hrudey's last post earlier. I think it's fine, as long as we're all clear that decisions are discretionary, some GMs have different sensibilities and 'zeal' in doing their job, which is why when there is a policy of secrecy at the very least can lead to suspicion and recrimination.

The appeal system is what we got to deal with as users when we are in "trouble" and i think that any user in this game will have to accept that as a given fact just as any other rule we are to follow.

Well then we could have just accepted that rampant daytrading because it was there too. We could have accepted FA rules for what they were too. We could have had no thread about Ads or Private Leagues since there weren't in the beginning.

What I'm asking is as much of a policy as any. I don't want to be judged by someone I suspect might be biased against me. I don't want to have to go and explain in an appeal what I tried to explain in this thread just to have GMs dismissing it because they don't see a problem with it and they trust in the honesty of their colleagues.

honestly i dont see the big problem here

I see no problem either since this is just an extension of an (apparently) existing policy.

if you play by the rules you will never bee in trouble and have to use the appeals system.

Well I don't want to get in trouble by divulging anything more, but obviously you're not considering that others are involved too in the situation I described originally. I am happy to accept punishment when I'm guaranteed that everyone involved is looked at the same way. Does it make sense? If specific GMs are involved, who are seemingly close to someone I'm having a spat with on the forums, would make me question whether I am being treated fairly compared to everyone else involved and that should not be the case. This is also why the 'appeal' system does nothing for me. I can only appeal decisions against me (which I may believe are justified), not against others involved which I know nothing about.

If specific GMs are involved, who are seemingly close to someone I'm having a spat with on the forums, would make me question whether I am being treated fairly compared to everyone else involved and that should not be the case. This is also why the 'appeal' system does nothing for me. I can only appeal decisions against me (which I may believe are justified), not against others involved which I know nothing about.

It's really quite simple.

1. If you feel you've been wronged by a GM decision, you may appeal.
2. If you feel someone else should be punished, you may report them.
3. If you want to know if/how someone else was punished, as a rule that information is not divulged.