BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

a GM has to take care is not t let things go wild

I'm not talking about moderation obviously. And I am not talking about measures that are taken correctly. I am talking about the possibility that a GM appears to take a particularly lenient action towards his countrymate (demonstrated by subsequent posts by him). I have no appeal for that and I feel like reporting, as it is, is not enough IF a GM from the same country as the reported will take up the case. We're back to square one. Therefore extend the rules for personal involvement (NOT for moderation, but for fines) to nationality of the GM.

Its not a case that a GM will risk his ''reputation'' or his position just to give an advance to a country mate in a forum discussion.

Frankly the reputation of some GMs emerged to be so low on the forums (nobody participating here of course) that I think there is no worth even discussing this. I just disagree. Just because your perception is this, it does not mean the users see things the same way you do.

Now in case that the ''foreign'' user believes that he didn't violated any rule or the forum violation of GM's country-mate is still there,he can defend himself by reporting the GM and the user. In this case the GM will not be able to handle the report as he is personally involved so someone else will take over.

BRAVO! Finally we're getting somewhere. As things stand now, I have no ground to report the GM because, according to the current policy, he did his job, he is not 'involved personally' as described by you, so he did nothing wrong. If the additional safeguard was in place (ie. the current policy was extended to the situations I described) and a GM still went ahead and ruled (once again I don't care about moderation) then I would have AUTOMATICALLY ground for reporting him.

If he still believes that justice was not applied he can appeal in the known e-mail address.

Here is the other problem: we users don't know what you did or didn't after we reported someone. We see the person reported continuing to offend others on the forums and we think nothing has been done. We also think that since a GM of the same country was involved that is the reason nothing has been done. You want us to report again? Sure, but if you are fined and the other clearly hasn't since he keeps posting, do you not see how this may look suspicious? In fact, I'm pretty sure you are aware that I did exactly that: I reported a GM for not doing his job to other GMs, fully knowing that I had no ground for it just because he let someone from his community have a free pass.

(who i'm almost sure received the same warning/fine)

Don't offend my intelligence. What is it with you folks? One lies about the number of posts the other also needs to lie about something? I had to report the user multiple times, since after the situation was dealt with by the GM he KEPT offending foreign people on their own forums, despite reports against him and a clear warning on the forums. Now, you can say this does not prove anything, however other members of staff believe that the GM acted correctly in NON sanctioning that user the first time, which actually proves beyond doubt no serious measures were taken and that you take me for an idiot.

At the end what is more important?

The most important thing about moderation is that mods appear to be fair in doing their job.

I ask again to you since there are plenty of GMs 'participating' here as if I am attacking them. What is the problem with extending the current rules of conflict of interest to when a person of your own community and a person of another community are involved? In particular if this happens in national forums of another community and not in global forums? Again NOT moderation, I don't really care about that, although others might have a problem since they believe some of you moderate to cover up evidence or don't understand the nuances of a foreign language

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/10/2016 5:31:55 AM