With regards to recent complaints.

[Noobert]

as i wrote, nobody was infirmed about "lawless"... you knew that and fully used that. thats te reason why im reporting this, you abused your Mod position, used insults and was laughing on it. another Mod, reported as well, was laughing as well. thats abusing mod power, cuse you knew about something what was not announced, and even if it was anounced, Mod/GM/Admin cant be alowed to post like you did, or PM like jack did.

and if you hate me, its your problem. not mine. but insults are insults.

You shouldn't have to be informed. If you paid attention to the forum, and read what was being said you would know. People getting unbanned because of Blahh? Warning reports being ignored? It's not hard to follow the trails. I used insults on you, who used them on me first, about 20 times, before I started to use them on you. I even stopped before you because of my distaste in it.

Insults are insults, so why were you not banned for calling me a loser every post? That's why. The rules were bent by Jason then, and it was fixed almost immediately by Lore/Buck/Robe.

I guess it's my problem then. You deserve my dislike after all you have said and done to me.

Now I've gone and done something I shouldn't..so I won't be arguing further. Buck told us not to argue, and I won't. So sorry Buck, but he just gets under my skin.

[Zeratul]

While not having people involved modding the war threads would be good, I don't think there is enough staff. And even if there was, say MajorLeeHurts, mods the Server War, both sides will accuse her of bias when she makes a decision against them. And quite seriously, would someone not involved in the war be active enough to mod any war? Some wars would be okay, they don't produce pages of stuff in 5 mins. The server war would require, in my opinion, a very dedicated team of non involved parties. Kudos if they exist but I don't think they do.

The suggestion to have each side mod themselves only embeds alliances into the modding, though is perhaps a nice compromise but in the long run may be a step in the wrong direction as it encourages alliance boundaries. However, I think it would be more fun to reverse it. An 'Fuall' mod can only mod TTF players and a TTF mod can only mod Fuall players.

Give it about a week and the thread should be rather quiet

@Buck, while I can see the reason for this thread, a part of the issue, as has been explained to me by a few people is timing. The posts and stuff which show biased modding are gone and it's more a matter of consistency and timing. For example, a TTF mod will warn someone in FUALL for something but they will overlook the same insult from their own side. Then the FUALL mod comes along and warns the TTF person. Hence the post and person is modded just that it potentially should have been done at the same time but wasn't. Or in some cases a warning will be issued with modding but not when the second warning was given.

So I believe the question is more consistency because usually what happens is something gets modded, then people notice the same thing being said from the other side and yell Moderator Bias until the offending post is also edited.

So while this thread is a good idea, I'm not sure you are going to get what you want out of it, since the evidence you are requesting is gone in a lot of cases, or requires precise time stamps and more knowledge of who did what that most have.

well said...

mods not involved in war simply do not read the thread...

[Manetheren]

The suggestion to have each side mod themselves only embeds alliances into the modding, though is perhaps a nice compromise but in the long run may be a step in the wrong direction as it encourages alliance boundaries. However, I think it would be more fun to reverse it. An 'Fuall' mod can only mod TTF players and a TTF mod can only mod Fuall players.

I believe the impression now is that Fuall mods TTF members more than Fuall members and vice-versa. If we had some statistics on how often TTF mods warn Fuall members vs TTF members and how often Fuall mods warn TTF members vs Fuall members then we may be able to provide proof of fairness or bias.

[Jack]

All you would prove is that one side disobeys the rules more then the other.



I hate it when people take such arbitrary statistics and tries to claim they prove something they barely provide evidence for and even then relies on other evidence. That's like saying that because I'm more likely to be bit by a kitten then a lion that lions are less aggressive then kittens.

[Lore]

The suggestion to have each side mod themselves only embeds alliances into the modding, though is perhaps a nice compromise but in the long run may be a step in the wrong direction as it encourages alliance boundaries. However, I think it would be more fun to reverse it. An 'Fuall' mod can only mod TTF players and a TTF mod can only mod Fuall players.

I believe the impression now is that Fuall mods TTF members more than Fuall members and vice-versa. If we had some statistics on how often TTF mods warn Fuall members vs TTF members and how often Fuall mods warn TTF members vs Fuall members then we may be able to provide proof of fairness or bias.

You know what I would like to see guys?


I'd like to see ALL forum users treat people the same way they want to be treated.

Not FUALL members, not TTF members, not FS, or Angelic assasins, or EPA, or any other alliances. ALL members no matter the tag.

Then their would be no modding and no calls of bias.

But I'm just a dreamer and a hopeless romantic, always have been, and always will be.

[Manetheren]

The suggestion to have each side mod themselves only embeds alliances into the modding, though is perhaps a nice compromise but in the long run may be a step in the wrong direction as it encourages alliance boundaries. However, I think it would be more fun to reverse it. An 'Fuall' mod can only mod TTF players and a TTF mod can only mod Fuall players.

I believe the impression now is that Fuall mods TTF members more than Fuall members and vice-versa. If we had some statistics on how often TTF mods warn Fuall members vs TTF members and how often Fuall mods warn TTF members vs Fuall members then we may be able to provide proof of fairness or bias.

You know what I would like to see guys?


I'd like to see ALL forum users treat people the same way they want to be treated.

Not FUALL members, not TTF members, not FS, or Angelic assasins, or EPA, or any other alliances. ALL members no matter the tag.

Then their would be no modding and no calls of bias.

But I'm just a dreamer and a hopeless romantic, always have been, and always will be.

That would be ideal Lore but as you say, dreaming. I think a majority of users here would like that as well but it is hard for people to turn the other cheek when they are treated badly by others. Its even harder for a user to turn the other cheek when a mod mistreats them. When a mod insults a user that doesnt deserve it then the situation escalates and peoples behavior gets worse. Other users see this and the general behavior of the forum detiorates.

All you would prove is that one side disobeys the rules more then the other.
I hate it when people take such arbitrary statistics and tries to claim they prove something they barely provide evidence for and even then relies on other evidence. That's like saying that because I'm more likely to be bit by a kitten then a lion that lions are less aggressive then kittens.

Im assuming by "people" you mean me Jack since I was the one who suggested it. I am trying to provide you with a way to disprove bias. Right now the popular consensus among TTF members is that there are some mods that are biased. Since people tend to believe numbers and statistics over words, the best way to change their mind is to show the data. Look at it this way, if Buck comes back on Sunday and says "not enough proof so there are no biased mods". Do you think that will change what people believe?

[deni]

The suggestion to have each side mod themselves only embeds alliances into the modding, though is perhaps a nice compromise but in the long run may be a step in the wrong direction as it encourages alliance boundaries. However, I think it would be more fun to reverse it. An 'Fuall' mod can only mod TTF players and a TTF mod can only mod Fuall players.

I believe the impression now is that Fuall mods TTF members more than Fuall members and vice-versa. If we had some statistics on how often TTF mods warn Fuall members vs TTF members and how often Fuall mods warn TTF members vs Fuall members then we may be able to provide proof of fairness or bias.

You know what I would like to see guys?


I'd like to see ALL forum users treat people the same way they want to be treated.

Not FUALL members, not TTF members, not FS, or Angelic assasins, or EPA, or any other alliances. ALL members no matter the tag.

Then their would be no modding and no calls of bias.

But I'm just a dreamer and a hopeless romantic, always have been, and always will be.

That would be ideal Lore but as you say, dreaming. I think a majority of users here would like that as well but it is hard for people to turn the other cheek when they are treated badly by others. Its even harder for a user to turn the other cheek when a mod mistreats them. When a mod insults a user that doesnt deserve it then the situation escalates and peoples behavior gets worse. Other users see this and the general behavior of the forum detiorates.

All you would prove is that one side disobeys the rules more then the other.
I hate it when people take such arbitrary statistics and tries to claim they prove something they barely provide evidence for and even then relies on other evidence. That's like saying that because I'm more likely to be bit by a kitten then a lion that lions are less aggressive then kittens.

Im assuming by "people" you mean me Jack since I was the one who suggested it. I am trying to provide you with a way to disprove bias. Right now the popular consensus among TTF members is that there are some mods that are biased. Since people tend to believe numbers and statistics over words, the best way to change their mind is to show the data. Look at it this way, if Buck comes back on Sunday and says "not enough proof so there are no biased mods". Do you think that will change what people believe?

Isn't that an odd logic?

You believe that mods are biased and thus you require "proof" that we are not? What hapened to the good ol "innocent til proven guilty"?

As buck stated before, if you want to accuse us of bias, the come up with some evidence.

[Jack]

All you would prove is that one side disobeys the rules more then the other.
I hate it when people take such arbitrary statistics and tries to claim they prove something they barely provide evidence for and even then relies on other evidence. That's like saying that because I'm more likely to be bit by a kitten then a lion that lions are less aggressive then kittens.

Im assuming by "people" you mean me Jack since I was the one who suggested it. I am trying to provide you with a way to disprove bias. Right now the popular consensus among TTF members is that there are some mods that are biased. Since people tend to believe numbers and statistics over words, the best way to change their mind is to show the data. Look at it this way, if Buck comes back on Sunday and says "not enough proof so there are no biased mods". Do you think that will change what people believe?

By people I mean anyone who tries to use arbitrary statistics to prove a point.

I do no have to prove that which does not exist. You're the one making claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't care what you guys think, that is of no consequence to me.

[Manetheren]

The suggestion to have each side mod themselves only embeds alliances into the modding, though is perhaps a nice compromise but in the long run may be a step in the wrong direction as it encourages alliance boundaries. However, I think it would be more fun to reverse it. An 'Fuall' mod can only mod TTF players and a TTF mod can only mod Fuall players.

I believe the impression now is that Fuall mods TTF members more than Fuall members and vice-versa. If we had some statistics on how often TTF mods warn Fuall members vs TTF members and how often Fuall mods warn TTF members vs Fuall members then we may be able to provide proof of fairness or bias.

You know what I would like to see guys?


I'd like to see ALL forum users treat people the same way they want to be treated.

Not FUALL members, not TTF members, not FS, or Angelic assasins, or EPA, or any other alliances. ALL members no matter the tag.

Then their would be no modding and no calls of bias.

But I'm just a dreamer and a hopeless romantic, always have been, and always will be.

That would be ideal Lore but as you say, dreaming. I think a majority of users here would like that as well but it is hard for people to turn the other cheek when they are treated badly by others. Its even harder for a user to turn the other cheek when a mod mistreats them. When a mod insults a user that doesnt deserve it then the situation escalates and peoples behavior gets worse. Other users see this and the general behavior of the forum detiorates.

All you would prove is that one side disobeys the rules more then the other.
I hate it when people take such arbitrary statistics and tries to claim they prove something they barely provide evidence for and even then relies on other evidence. That's like saying that because I'm more likely to be bit by a kitten then a lion that lions are less aggressive then kittens.

Im assuming by "people" you mean me Jack since I was the one who suggested it. I am trying to provide you with a way to disprove bias. Right now the popular consensus among TTF members is that there are some mods that are biased. Since people tend to believe numbers and statistics over words, the best way to change their mind is to show the data. Look at it this way, if Buck comes back on Sunday and says "not enough proof so there are no biased mods". Do you think that will change what people believe?

Isn't that an odd logic?

You believe that mods are biased and thus you require "proof" that we are not? What hapened to the good ol "innocent til proven guilty"?

As buck stated before, if you want to accuse us of bias, the come up with some evidence.

Did I accuse you of bias?

[Jack]

Yes you did.

[Seaborgium]

I don't think Jack is bias, however he is rude in 80% of what he has to say.

[Manetheren]

Yes you did.

Really? When?

I don't think Jack is bias, however he is rude in 80% of what he has to say.

I think the % is higher but then again according to Jack Im one of a bunch of sniveling, whiny TJP members crying over spilt milk. But this thread is not about Jack's rudeness. Its supposed to be about mod bias.

[Borek]

Well honestly i'd be pretty short with people who were only complaining because they either want to weasel out of a ban/warning or get someone else warned/banned.

You guys seem to forget the mods actually have a game to play, lives to live, they give up their own time to read the drivel on this forum and moderate it.

what do they get for their troubles? Accusations of Bias, massings, threats, insults, all because they offered to donate their free time to help all the users.

As for you Caesar then i respect you, but you were being a complete ass to noobert for many, many pages, it's just not acceptable to whine when he finally snaps and says stuff back.

Would it be better if all the mods resigned and the forum was taken down? no, so have some respect for the fact the mods have to waste time modding us even if you don't always agree with how they do it.

[caesar2]

Borek, i applied to be a mod, i offered my time as well. we undrstand its a hard work to be a mod/GM/admin. its even harder to be a user after all and care about your game stuff on forum.

but borek, you cant judge me because you didnt read all those 9 ingame PM before we went to forum, noobert was that one who was provoking and startet all that crap. and it was noobert who abused mod informations and used many insults.

well, if you sais i was rude to him, than we both should be warned or banned, right? if that will be right, i agree with that. we both will be warned, but i cant accept anseres like i recieved after i reported him. and thats the problem borek. how each mod group (fuall, ttf, FS, etc) back up each other. and i relay found only FUALL mod's answeres on my reports. i said it before, can post here evidence, like buck want. first was from mordack, it was nice PM, explaining rules, etc. second was from jack, and it was already posted.

and few weeks before i was moded by deni, another FUALL, many ppl, mods and admins too said it was maybe not te best she have done, my post was between another 2 posts, etc... we know the whole story. i think i have right to be angry on this system of moding.

so im here, posted evidence.

C2

[deni]

and few weeks before i was moded by deni, another FUALL, many ppl, mods and admins too said it was maybe not te best she have done, my post was between another 2 posts, etc... we know the whole story. i think i have right to be angry on this system of moding.

so im here, posted evidence.

C2

I would like to know who were the Admins/mods who disagreed with my modding and told you so.

I do not like the way you are implying that the mod team does not agree with my decision. Surely if "admins" were not happy with my modding, they would have overturned my decision.