BuzzerBeater Forums

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

But honestly i dont see the big problem here at all since if you play by the rules you will never bee in trouble and have to use the appeals system.

Nickleon understands the problem better than anyone else, it seems. I think I clarified there.

I'm just saying what I'm asking is so minor (and I still haven't heard a single reason why it would be wrong to add it in, other than we are already covered by the current policy, which I disagree with) that I don't understand why there is so much hatred against this proposal.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/10/2016 4:14:47 AM

Damn, my initial reply was accidentally deleted...I'll have to be short:

The case that propelled you to start this thread was rightfully handled. And to think we are doing all this talking about three deleted messages that were rigthfully deleted is quite astonishing

If the case was rightfully handled then how come the foreign user posted additional offensive posts on our forums AFTER the situation was 'handled'? Maybe you want us to believe he did so after he was sanctioned and also ignoring a warning to everyone in the thread? Sure. Since you keep insisting and missing the point of the whole thread trying to make it personal, you should know better than anyone else that I know that the foreign user was not sanctioned in any way...

You see, I'd understand you trying to dig yourself out of this if you had swiftly moderated that thread, but since you were all quite slow we got to see ALL of the posts. I know exactly who said what and when, all of it.

The point is. If another GM decided on the sanctions, instead of the GM of that other nation it would be a lot cleaner and would not leave the suspicion that double standards are applied. Sure, it does not guarantee we will be treated fairly, but at least we know for sure the GM was not biased based on his nationality. It's already better than nothing.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/10/2016 4:53:24 AM

You either take my word for that this is how it happens or you believe in what ever scenario you want to paint up.
But the truth still remains the same.

You're saying I don't know what happened to me, what the posts contained and the conversations I've had with 3 different GMs? A fourth GM yesterday joined the email party, the more the merrier I suppose.

I'm sorry I think it's you coming short here. The situation is exactly as it is portrayed, nothing more and nothing less. GM acted selectively at his discretion.

If you chose to go down the same line as the one that started it all you are well aware of what may happen and you have made an active choice.

I never claimed that someone was 'wrongfully' fined. Nickleon understands the situation perfectly. For the last time, I started this proposal because I have an issue with GMs being too lenient towards other people involved, possibly because of their nationality.

And again if i read your posts in this thread it becomes clearer and clearer to me that the problem lies in your trust towards people and not much more.

This is possible, but if trust didn't play any part in 'moderating' we wouldn't be even talking.