Conquer Club

As you may or may not notice, I have been working with the other Team CC members and we have developed a much more comprehensive thread of Community Guidelines. We feel that these are indisputably better than the previous guidelines, but that doesn't mean that they are 100% complete.

If you have a constructive improvement that you think could be included, please post it here and we may add it.

If you wish to bitch about the new guidelines, head over to Flame Wars. (This thread will be heavily moderated.)

EDIT: The Community Guidelines ARE in effect now. This thread is to iron out those parts of the guidelines that may be ambiguous. What has already been included in the guidelines will not be taken away. They were built from issues that we moderators see around the forums that should not be allowed. Many of you in the forum have made requests for months for the rules to be more specific and easier to follow without the appearance of subjectivity by any of the Team CC Members. This is what we designed.

Spam: Not tolerated in any form whether smilies, text, orcharacters.

well then looks like mods may be getting banned. At least 2 mods do this. Yes NS I will print screen this for you when I see it

The problem that I see is that the mods think that the community wants to annoy them. The parody threads and the like are not there as an attempt to personally attack the mods but to have a bit of fun. The parody threads aren't posted to annoy anyone but to share wit and have a bit of fun. Just like the whole "C" threads.

When the mods ban people for "spam" and lock all of the fun threads like they have been doing, that's when everything escalates. That's when everyone feels agravated at the mods baselessly stopping the fun and that's when the actual personal attacks are likeliest to occur.

The easiest way to mod the off-topics forum is to allow the fun threads. Locking them and banning people for perceived insults will only create more, actual insults.

Also

Just because everyone in the thread doesn't mind it going off topic does not mean that it's okey doky.

That, I do not agree with. Anyone who has been in a discussion lasting longer than 5 minutes knows that the topics will fluctuate. If everyone is suddenly shifting the topic that should be okay. A debate about say abortion might easily turn into a debate about war.


The main point I recommend is to run as much hands-off as possible. Let the fads run out. Someone will post "The right to bear arms" people will post "The right to arm bears", "The bears of right arm" "The Right arm of bears" "Arm the right bears" threads and then will stop and move on. Only when someone is truly being extreme should mods step in and intervene. Otherwise let the community work by itself.

Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else. This includes posting personal information about a CC user on another site, you will be held accountable here.

This I also disagree with. If someone on their own free will posts their phone number/opinion/etc in a publicly available place that means they want people to see it. If you're posting a blog it means you want people to see it and you want them to comment, otherwise you would be writing it in your own diary, electronic or hand-written, and keeping it secret.

If you think the admin is wrong, then this probably isn't the right community for you.

Wow. Damn you guys are excellent at this customer relations thing. "If you disagree, leave"
Just wow

About the annoying thing. The mods should only intervene when someone is annoyed. If everyone is just having fun the mods should not act.

If they are being annoying, then let an Admin know.

How should we do this? I've PM'd admins with no response and etickets go unanswered. Is there a bat signal or something?

you also reference the head chatter but dont define who that is?

Spam: continuously bumping a thread

Gambling... instead of making a link to google, maybe this would work better: http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=gambling That site teaches you how to use the search as well, I believe that is half the problem.

Those are the two things I caught.

jayde wrote:

If they are being annoying, then let an Admin know.

How should we do this? I've PM'd admins with no response and etickets go unanswered. Is there a bat signal or something?

you also reference the head chatter but dont define who that is?

It'll help once all the admins aren't on vacation. And sometimes PMs and e-tickets go unanswered because the answers aren't immediately known which could lead to the comments being lost.

Currently the Head Chatter is [player]James Vazquez[/url]. Every chat mod should know who it is whenever it changes.

Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else. This includes posting personal information about a CC user on another site, you will be held accountable here.

too much liability for a law suit

Night Strike wrote:

jayde wrote:

If they are being annoying, then let an Admin know.

How should we do this? I've PM'd admins with no response and etickets go unanswered. Is there a bat signal or something?

you also reference the head chatter but dont define who that is?

It'll help once all the admins aren't on vacation. And sometimes PMs and e-tickets go unanswered because the answers aren't immediately known which could lead to the comments being lost.

So your answer then is there's no way to contact an Admin, as your guidelines state? The admins weren't on vacation when I sent in a complaint over a month ago, because I saw them posting elsewhere.

Your chat instructions aren't correct btw.

Iliad wrote:The problem that I see is that the mods think that the community wants to annoy them. The parody threads and the like are not there as an attempt to personally attack the mods but to have a bit of fun. The parody threads aren't posted to annoy anyone but to share wit and have a bit of fun. Just like the whole "C" threads.

When the mods ban people for "spam" and lock all of the fun threads like they have been doing, that's when everything escalates. That's when everyone feels agravated at the mods baselessly stopping the fun and that's when the actual personal attacks are likeliest to occur.

The easiest way to mod the off-topics forum is to allow the fun threads. Locking them and banning people for perceived insults will only create more, actual insults.

Also

Just because everyone in the thread doesn't mind it going off topic does not mean that it's okey doky.

That, I do not agree with. Anyone who has been in a discussion lasting longer than 5 minutes knows that the topics will fluctuate. If everyone is suddenly shifting the topic that should be okay. A debate about say abortion might easily turn into a debate about war.


The main point I recommend is to run as much hands-off as possible. Let the fads run out. Someone will post "The right to bear arms" people will post "The right to arm bears", "The bears of right arm" "The Right arm of bears" "Arm the right bears" threads and then will stop and move on. Only when someone is truly being extreme should mods step in and intervene. Otherwise let the community work by itself.

Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else. This includes posting personal information about a CC user on another site, you will be held accountable here.

This I also disagree with. If someone on their own free will posts their phone number/opinion/etc in a publicly available place that means they want people to see it. If you're posting a blog it means you want people to see it and you want them to comment, otherwise you would be writing it in your own diary, electronic or hand-written, and keeping it secret.

If you think the admin is wrong, then this probably isn't the right community for you.

Wow. Damn you guys are excellent at this customer relations thing. "If you disagree, leave"
Just wow

About the annoying thing. The mods should only intervene when someone is annoyed. If everyone is just having fun the mods should not act.

I agree with everything that you said. I am a sucker for things that make sense.
I would add this. -

Some policemen are friendly.
And some policemen become friends.
If you are a policeman,
try to be just friendly, because you can not do your job if you become friends.

Before I write this post lets make it clear what I am about to say is said as a community member, not as a member of CC, and should not be taken as a teamCC member opinion. anyway...

Iliad I believe that you bring many very good points. Now I am not saying your points are correct (I'm also not saying they arn't correct either) but what you have brought up I believe is a good constructive group if issues that is worthy of a good strong discussion.

Let me just say that I am VERY glad that forum guildlines have finally been updated. Some of the stuff is complete bullshit though. Here are my main points:

•The "admin is always right" perspective is ridiculous. The mods shouldn't act like Twill is perfect, because honestly he isn't.

•I also think that it should probably be shortened a tad because it's a bit too wordy for new users to want to come in read. It should be shorter and more to the point. You can't print a 100 page rulebook and if someone breaks the rules you say "YOU SHOULDA BEEN MORE CAREFUL WHEN READIN THE 100 PAGES".

•This is something I know will never be changed, but I still think it's worth mentioning. Iliad brought this up earlier and I think that it is important for threads to go off topic. Discussions will always side-track no matter what you try to do. I also think that harmless spam should be allowed because honestly, who is it hurting?

timmytuttut88 wrote:Let me just say that I am VERY glad that forum guildlines have finally been updated. Some of the stuff is complete bullshit though. Here are my main points:

•The "admin is always right" perspective is ridiculous. The mods shouldn't act like Twill is perfect, because honestly he isn't.

•I also think that it should probably be shortened a tad because it's a bit too wordy for new users to want to come in read. It should be shorter and more to the point. You can't print a 100 page rulebook and if someone breaks the rules you say "YOU SHOULDA BEEN MORE CAREFUL WHEN READIN THE 100 PAGES".

•This is something I know will never be changed, but I still think it's worth mentioning. Iliad brought this up earlier and I think that it is important for threads to go off topic. Discussions will always side-track no matter what you try to do. I also think that harmless spam should be allowed because honestly, who is it hurting?

1) No one ever said Twill is perfect. No one ever said this site was a democracy either.

2) So now that the guidelines are much more comprehensive, you (and probably others) want it shorter. Go figure.

Actually, the purpose for the intro post is to clarify the "Don't be annoying" part. If people know to not be annoying, then they don't have to read the rest of it. That's also why people receive warnings first: so they know they're doing something wrong.

3) What's harmless spam? Opening that exception will just lead people to try to justify other kinds (which is exactly what these guidelines are meant to improve upon from the old ones).

Note: Private rooms and messages are rarely actively moderated, but using them to harass other members without their consent or violate other site rules is not allowed and may be reported.

This should be changed. Many people create their own rooms wherein site rules may be violated (flaming, porn, whatever), with all in the room willingly participating. I suggest deleting the underlined part and adding the bolded part.

Night Strike wrote:[1) No one ever said Twill is perfect.

Then you might want to get rid of the "if you think the admin is wrong leave" part.

Night Strike wrote:No one ever said this site was a democracy either.

I can see that.

Night Strike wrote:2) So now that the guidelines are much more comprehensive, you (and probably others) want it shorter. Go figure.

There are some unneccessary parts in their that make it more wordy then it has to be. The problem with the old guildlines was that it just said "no spam no trolling". Never any personal info stuff and it didn't explain spam very well. Our new guildlines are 100 pages long and i'm just trying to think of ways to cut down.

Night Strike wrote:3) What's harmless spam? Opening that exception will just lead people to try to justify other kinds (which is exactly what these guidelines are meant to improve upon from the old ones).

Harmless spam:

Spam that nobody considers a problem. Spam that people generally accept and isn't a headache. For instance, the "C" threads, what did they really do that caused a big problem? Also the "going off topic part" is a bit ridiculous also. It's inevitable that things will go off topic. Let threads be what they're going to be.

jayde wrote:

Note: Private rooms and messages are rarely actively moderated, but using them to harass other members without their consent or violate other site rules is not allowed and may be reported.

This should be changed. Many people create their own rooms wherein site rules may be violated (flaming, porn, whatever), with all in the room willingly participating. I suggest deleting the underlined part and adding the bolded part.

By definition, harassment is unwanted/without a person's consent. If the members agree to it, then it's not harassment. Even if the members agree to a private room's content, that does not mean they can't report it (of course, those "friends" would probably shun them). If you choose to break the rules in a private room, that's your business, but don't be surprised if you find yourself getting caught. My advice would be to use a messenger or another site if you want to do actions that would not normally be allowed on this site.

I will take it up with the head of chat Night. I am asking for his response not yours (no offense since it's not your area). And there is such a thing as wanted harassment, like in the private flame rooms made in chat.

Night Strike wrote:

timmytuttut88 wrote:Let me just say that I am VERY glad that forum guildlines have finally been updated. Some of the stuff is complete bullshit though. Here are my main points:

•The "admin is always right" perspective is ridiculous. The mods shouldn't act like Twill is perfect, because honestly he isn't.

•I also think that it should probably be shortened a tad because it's a bit too wordy for new users to want to come in read. It should be shorter and more to the point. You can't print a 100 page rulebook and if someone breaks the rules you say "YOU SHOULDA BEEN MORE CAREFUL WHEN READIN THE 100 PAGES".

•This is something I know will never be changed, but I still think it's worth mentioning. Iliad brought this up earlier and I think that it is important for threads to go off topic. Discussions will always side-track no matter what you try to do. I also think that harmless spam should be allowed because honestly, who is it hurting?

1) No one ever said Twill is perfect. No one ever said this site was a democracy either.

2) So now that the guidelines are much more comprehensive, you (and probably others) want it shorter. Go figure.

Actually, the purpose for the intro post is to clarify the "Don't be annoying" part. If people know to not be annoying, then they don't have to read the rest of it. That's also why people receive warnings first: so they know they're doing something wrong.

3) What's harmless spam? Opening that exception will just lead people to try to justify other kinds (which is exactly what these guidelines are meant to improve upon from the old ones).

I do not quite understand the "annoying" part. Just a bit too subjective, and up to the whims of the mods, dont you think ? I thought that the new rules were to be clarifying, so as to solve these ambiguities.

I gave the chat mods time to find these errors on their own but they didn't see anything wrong at first. Nothing huge but guidelines should be correct no? Then later on James finally found one. Props to jayde for knowing more than the chat mods! btw I learned all this in the Q&A how to thread I read when I first came here plus trial and error in chat, so the info is out there if you look.

The underlined parts are errors. The bolded parts are clarifications.

Private Rooms: While in chat you may want to include several users in a private conversation. To do this, you can open a private room. To begin or join a room, you will need to type /join "My Room" (must have the " marks) with the My Room part being the name of your room. If you want to invite a user to your private room, type /invite "Username" (must have the " marks only if there is a space in the person's name) and the person may join.

Ignore a User: Just like in the games and forums, certain users may frequently annoy you without breaking the guidelines. You do have the ability to ignore that user; type /ignore "Username" (must have the " marks only if there is a space in the person's name) and you will not have to read what they type. If you wish to take them off your ignore list, type /unignore "Username". You are not allowed to ignore a chat moderator.

*sigh....*

Who had the brilliant idea to post this for "community feedback" before making it official? That decision has now left this entire revamp of the community guidelines in a position where it will now take until the end of next summer before anything is finalized.

I like you Night Strike, and I always will, but this was a mistake. The guidelines certainly need to be beefed up and clarified, but you just made it a whole hell of a lot harder.

i think it was a great idea. Mods get the final say end of story. he was asking if there were small minute changes that we thought should be changed for the better of C.C.

GrimReaper. wrote:i think it was a great idea. Mods get the final say end of story. he was asking if there were small minute changes that we thought should be changed for the better of C.C.

Who makes an announcement called "feedback" when they'll only except small minute changes? And we know mods get the final say, the question now is "will they be able to listen to the community"?

Optimus Prime wrote:*sigh....*

Who had the brilliant idea to post this for "community feedback" before making it official? That decision has now left this entire revamp of the community guidelines in a position where it will now take until the end of next summer before anything is finalized.

I like you Night Strike, and I always will, but this was a mistake. The guidelines certainly need to be beefed up and clarified, but you just made it a whole hell of a lot harder.

Are you saying the community shouldn't have a say at all and it's preferential to ram it down our throats? Whose community is it?

porkenbeans wrote:I do not quite understand the "annoying" part. Just a bit too subjective, and up to the whims of the mods, dont you think ? I thought that the new rules were to be clarifying, so as to solve these ambiguities.

The 3 pages worth of guidelines are there in case you don't understand or are not sure of what the 'annoying' part means:

Community Guidelines wrote:If you understand this one prevailing rule you can stop reading now. If you're not sure what that means, read on for the boring details. If you don't agree with these please leave. There are much better sites out there for you and we're not keeping you here.

I don't believe it is to difficult to understand how to not be annoying. If you are generally not an annoying character on the fourms you could probably argue that you don't need to read the new guidelines (that not an invitation to not read them btw). Unannoying people may step over the line from time to time, thats where warning come in, to let them know when the lines is crossed (in many cases that line is crossed unintentionally).

Before I go off in a tangent, the bottom line is. If you don't understand how to be 'no annoying' then I would advice giving these guidelines a good going over. They may be long but there well thought out (although admittable probably not perfect, because thats life. But they are a great improvment upon the last set of guidelines).

jayde wrote:Are you saying the community shouldn't have a say at all and it's preferential to ram it down our throats? Whose community is it?

If i remeber correctly, many members of the community asked for better guidelines. This is what they have been given. What OP is trying to say I believe is that by giving the community its say we risk delaying the finalised version (should this thread lead to changes) because there could be many clashing opinions on many issues. A valid point, personally I would rather let the community have it out and see what is produced. I can be the first to admit that fresh eyes will always pick up something that may have been missed by the group that worked on a project.

Optimus Prime wrote:*sigh....*

Who had the brilliant idea to post this for "community feedback" before making it official? That decision has now left this entire revamp of the community guidelines in a position where it will now take until the end of next summer before anything is finalized.

I like you Night Strike, and I always will, but this was a mistake. The guidelines certainly need to be beefed up and clarified, but you just made it a whole hell of a lot harder.

Yeah Damn Night Strike, for actually asking of the opinion of the community you're supposed to be running. Optimus this was a good move, and I hope the mods follow it up and listen to the advice.