StarGateWars Forums

I recently had a debate with a GM about a particular thread being in the GC that did not fit in the new rules that were posted. I felt that the way this was handled was very poor.

I'd just like to ask to keep posts constructive on this please, I feel strongly about this but want to do this properly.

I saw this thread in the GC made by renegadze:
viewtopic.php?f=68&t=159299

Basically he states that he needs his defence lowered due to upcoming tournaments and is giving new players/training alliances the opportunity to mass his defence down a bit. No retaliation involved, no war involved.

I reported this thread suggesting that the GC is not the correct place for it as it does not go by the new GC Rules that deni had posted. I also felt that it was very similar to Yoyo's thread in the General Section but not quite as "war" involved because in Yoyo's thread he was fighting back. Yoyo's thread was kept in the General section therefore Renegadze thread i felt should have been placed in General too as it involved less "war" action than Yoyo's did.
viewtopic.php?f=101&t=147980

So I reported the thread. deni closed the report. Nothing happened.
I decided to PM her as the correct course of action to ask her about it.

Firstly I'd just like to provide the original details of the new GC Rules here:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
As you can see this was dated 9th January.

After I PM'd deni asking about it, I got this response:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
As you can see there deni didn't really know where it fits in and she says "it is not really a war declaration".

Further PM's:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
You can see here that deni claims Yoyo's thread was a "challenge" and renegadze "is not one".

Further PM's:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
You can see here I claim it is a "challenge" but not a war as there is no retaliation. You will also see the it shows that Yoyo's thread was kept in General due to having the highest defence in the game yet it had more "war" involvement than renegadze thread.

Further PM's:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
I claimed here it does not meet any of the criteria in the new GC Rules clearly shown in the first screenshot.
deni responds advising me to read the rules again and that it does not mention challenges at all (directly or indirectly). However earlier deni claimed that renegadze thread was NOT a challenge whereas Yoyo's was.

Further PM's:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
The quotes got kind of merged here somehow. Anyway the first 4 lines are me, and the last one is deni. i was saying he's technically "inviting" people to mass him, this is similar to recruitment for a war, and in deni's new GC Rules it states recruitments do not belong in the GC but in General until all parties are finalised.
However now deni is claiming that renegadze thread IS a war challenge when earlier she said that it was NOT a war challenge.

I sent this PM in response to that:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
Note the time I sent it. 10:04pm. Prior to this responses were very quick.

The reply I got:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
I did not misunderstand and it doesn't look as if it was worded wrong in the previous screenshots.
Note the time of that response was 10:28pm which was 22 minutes after my last PM. However, due to the fact that deni appears "hidden" on the forums I could not tell if she was still on the forums or what she was doing.

I decided to take her advice and re-read the new GC rules just to see if I'm missing something.
I did this whilst continuing to reply via PM.

Further PM's:
[spoiler][/spoiler]

I went through each rule and explained why i felt it did not fit.

However when looking through the new GC rules I found this:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
I suddenly realised what deni had done during those 22 minutes between the PM replies.
4th bullet point down. This is new and incomplete. "Challenges are"
Last bullet point, last sentence, this is also new. ""This does not apply to war challenges".

I won't assume here, but my impression is that deni was adding a bullet point regarding Challenges, then changed her mind and chose to add a "caveat" for war challenges to the last bullet point, but forgetting to remove the additional bullet point afterwards.

Further PM's:
[spoiler][/spoiler]

The debate continued the next morning:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
"and your point is?"..... well i don't think Admins, GM's or Mods should "edit" rules amidst a debate especially with the intention of not telling the person involved in the debate that you have made the changes.

Further PM's:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
The fact deni edited the rules after she asked me to re-read them is no more acceptable due to the fact she made no attempt to inform me at the time that she had updated them to clarify the rules.

The fact that no-one else had reported the thread is mute. This had suddenly gone beyond a debate about where the thread should lay, but to the fact that the new GC rules were edited amidst a debate about those very rules.

Further PM's:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
[spoiler][/spoiler]
Screen shot was split in 2 as too long for the page.

First point is mute as it is not a war.
Second point ok.
Third point ok.
Fourth point ok.
Fifth point ok.
Sixth point - deni clearly said before rene's was not a challenge.

deni made no attempt to inform me that she had "edited" the rules to include a caveat for war challenges. I do not believe anyone should edit rules amidst a debate about the rules without informing the person in the debate that they have done it to provide clarification.

Now at this stage I had accepted that the thread would stay in GC.
My issue had moved on to the fact the rules were "edited" amidst debate.


deni clearly had said all she wanted on the subject.
I felt it was not right to post about it here so i decided to go to the Admins about it to seek their opinion. I only chose to contact 1 admin as the other 2 seem absent from me recently. So i spoke to the admin on MSN.

I explained to him what had happened.
His responses were:

If Id try to do anything about it
the overall reaction of mods and users would be, oh now its Clarkey again
and something like, "Clarkey's 10th issue on the week"

This clearly shows the actions of an Admin turning a blind eye because it is "me" that is involved.

and you spam the forums with complaints, while a big part of active forum users simply hate you

I am not spamming the forum with complaints. This particular one is a serious issue.



My closing comment is that the "real" issue here is not the right location of renegades thread, but the fact that a GM edited the GC rules amidst a debate which involved those GC rules and clearly did not make any attempt to inform me that she had made such changes for clarification purposes. I feel this is completely wrong and that rules should never be edited amidst a debate without at least informing the other party.

I took this to the admins who turned a blind eye. However I felt that was no reason to keep schtum.

I feel this is a serious breach of trust between Staff and Users.

I know that during the discussions over Jack's problems his altering of the spam temple rules during his problems with Gunz was highly frowned upon.

Changing the rules should NOT be done on a simple whim in the middle of a debate that's concerning them and should be thought through and done correctly. It will only cause more problems and is an abuse of power when the change directly favours the teams side of the argument, not the community's.

I also noticed Clarkey, you said she closed the thread? Was that due to Renegade achieving his intended goal, or was it due to her inability to handle the situation, as I have seen her do before? Honest question.

Semper wrote:I also noticed Clarkey, you said she closed the thread? Was that due to Renegade achieving his intended goal, or was it due to her inability to handle the situation, as I have seen her do before? Honest question.

Closed the report Semper, not the thread.

EDIT: Sorry noticed I said thread not report. First post edited to say "report".

Clarkey wrote:

Semper wrote:I also noticed Clarkey, you said she closed the thread? Was that due to Renegade achieving his intended goal, or was it due to her inability to handle the situation, as I have seen her do before? Honest question.

Closed the report Semper, not the thread.

EDIT: Sorry noticed I said thread not report. First post edited to say "report".

Ah, my due apologies to you both then.

Did you get any feedback from your report, or was it just closed?

Semper wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Semper wrote:I also noticed Clarkey, you said she closed the thread? Was that due to Renegade achieving his intended goal, or was it due to her inability to handle the situation, as I have seen her do before? Honest question.

Closed the report Semper, not the thread.

EDIT: Sorry noticed I said thread not report. First post edited to say "report".

Ah, my due apologies to you both then.

Did you get any feedback from your report, or was it just closed?

The feedback came after I contacted deni via PM, i.e. what resulted in this thread.

*sighs*

nice to see you too jumping on the bandwagon, Clarkey.

As I explained already: Rene's thread belongs in the GC and I did not see a reason to move it nor do I see one now.


I do not know what you want to achieve with this topic.


As for "editing" the rules for the GC: The rules were not changed, new rules were not introduced. A single rule was clarified to avoid pointless arguing over nothing with people who are doing nothing but arguing over insignificant things.

deni wrote:*sighs*

nice to see you too jumping on the bandwagon, Clarkey.

You may see it as me "jumping on the bandwagon" but I am not. It is not my fault there are other issues being raised at present. This issue happened several days ago, I have been extremely busy studying for something and always intended to press this issue. So don't feel i am jumping on anything because I would have posted this regardless.

deni wrote:As I explained already: Rene's thread belongs in the GC and I did not see a reason to move it nor do I see one now.

I do not know what you want to achieve with this topic.

I stated i accept that now, but the issue is not the location of the thread.

deni wrote:As for "editing" the rules for the GC: The rules were not changed, new rules were not introduced. A single rule was clarified to avoid pointless arguing over nothing with people who are doing nothing but arguing over insignificant things.

Yet you made no attempt to inform me when you were doing this that you were editing the rules to add a caveat to clarify the rules. This in my eyes is wrong.

Clarkey wrote:

deni wrote:*sighs*

nice to see you too jumping on the bandwagon, Clarkey.

You may see it as me "jumping on the bandwagon" but I am not. It is not my fault there are other issues being raised at present. This issue happened several days ago, I have been extremely busy studying for something and always intended to press this issue. So don't feel i am jumping on anything because I would have posted this regardless.

deni wrote:As I explained already: Rene's thread belongs in the GC and I did not see a reason to move it nor do I see one now.

I do not know what you want to achieve with this topic.

I stated i accept that now, but the issue is not the location of the thread.

deni wrote:As for "editing" the rules for the GC: The rules were not changed, new rules were not introduced. A single rule was clarified to avoid pointless arguing over nothing with people who are doing nothing but arguing over insignificant things.

Yet you made no attempt to inform me when you were doing this that you were editing the rules to add a caveat to clarify the rules. This in my eyes is wrong.

I think I asked you to check the rules. And edited them AFTER you did so.

Surely you do not imply that I did explicitly mention "war challenges" in the rules just because I wanted to fool you.

deni wrote:I think I asked you to check the rules. And edited them AFTER you did so.

Surely you do not imply that I did explicitly mention "war challenges" in the rules just because I wanted to fool you.

I'm not going to assume anything. However, when you were editing the rules, you knew what you were doing, you knew why you were doing it, and you knew i was debating the rules with you about it. Yet you failed to mention that you had inserted a caveat to clear up an misunderstanding or confusion with the rules.

Had you told me i'm going to edit the rules to make some clarification around it I would have been fine about it, because we would have come to some sort of understanding over it all and that would have prevented the issue rising again.

But you didn't. You failed to make any attempt to inform me.

I did not realize I had to inform YOU personally about a small change in the rules.

Sure. I could have.

I guess I made a mistake of assuming you have seen it for yourself.

deni wrote:I did not realize I had to inform YOU personally about a small change in the rules.

Sure. I could have.

I guess I made a mistake of assuming you have seen it for yourself.

It's not about ME personally, it would have been whoever was having the debate.

Clarifying the rules?

Hold the phone...

Deni wrote:Vendettas are defined as one individual versus one individual and belong in the vendetta corner. One individual versus an alliance may remain in the galactic Colosseum

Deni wrote:Whilst it is not mandatory for the war thread to state X versus Y, it must state the participants in the opening post. Generic threads will be moved into general until the participants are known.

before that you mention stuff about flaming, how offenders will be dealt with, no recruitment for tournaments, separate surrender threads and flaming.

Where is there anything regarding challenges for you to validate? Renegades and Yo-yo's threads are challenges (as you state yourself) and request's. You mention vendettas and define vendettas and you give a direct reference as to how a thread must have the participants in the opening thread. By it's very nature a challenge only begins with ONE participant, the person who sets it... ergo it cannot have the participants in the opening post and is recruitment for a task, something which you previously hinted at as not being allowed in the GC, though you did not state directly, but if you're not allowed to recruit for a tournament (as good a challenge as any, no?) then why are you allowed to recruit for a single massing?

So please, I am all eyes on that one, I cannot wait to read what you have to say.

As for notifying Clarkey. If you're debating with a user something to do with one of their complaints that may well indicate a mistake on your part you cannot just go and change the rules in the middle of it, then stand by those rules. That's pretty much like the prime minister being a tool for murder, getting caught and then him changing the laws in the middle of the court proceedings.

It's unprofessional, and if you want to be admin Deni.. which I know you do.. oh so very much.. this is something you cannot do. Think your rules through and don't approach someone like this. You're addressing a complaint, not a dog. Clarkey is a human being and deserves to be handled my a team member with the utmost respect..not being questioned as to his level of importance when warranting an explanation.

The reasoning behind it was that while Tournaments are organized and rather "Big" events that caption the attention of many players, war challenges are not.

You do sign up for tournaments, you do not sign up when accepting a challenge.

So no, tournaments are not war challenges.


My debate with Clarkey went over 2 days (correct me if I wrong). The clarification to the rule that triggered that debate was made during that discussion and it was done openly. The rule was not clarified "in secret" as the clarification was discussed with Clarkey in the pm exchange.

Considering the fact that the discussion went for that period of time, I do not see how anyone can claim that Clarkey was ignored.

Every rule or law, no matter how well thought out, leaves room open for interpretation. You just need to look around and see the volume of juristic literature interpreting laws.

I guess it is better to leave it that way and make this room wider, than trying to cover a subject that was not included in the rules initially, as neither me nor any other general mod thought about it.

But hey, if we did that, then you would all scream where the consistency is, wouldn't you?

deni wrote:My debate with Clarkey went over 2 days (correct me if I wrong). The clarification to the rule that triggered that debate was made during that discussion and it was done openly. The rule was not clarified "in secret" as the clarification was discussed with Clarkey in the pm exchange.

Considering the fact that the discussion went for that period of time, I do not see how anyone can claim that Clarkey was ignored.

No one claimed i was ignored.
The discussion was actually more like 12 hours, from the evening it started to the following morning. But still, as i said my main issue was that you hadn't made the effort to tell me it had been updated to give clarification.

Clarkey wrote:

deni wrote:My debate with Clarkey went over 2 days (correct me if I wrong). The clarification to the rule that triggered that debate was made during that discussion and it was done openly. The rule was not clarified "in secret" as the clarification was discussed with Clarkey in the pm exchange.

Considering the fact that the discussion went for that period of time, I do not see how anyone can claim that Clarkey was ignored.

No one claimed i was ignored.
The discussion was actually more like 12 hours, from the evening it started to the following morning. But still, as i said my main issue was that you hadn't made the effort to tell me it had been updated to give clarification.

Clarkey, we discussed the edit. In fact, the second half of the pm exchange was about it.

I am sorry for assuming the obvious: if you have not pointed it out, I would not have thought about it and had not done the modification.