[Manoz]

Just something to contemplate...

How about making it so that only staff and administrators can read and reply to topics in the complaints forum? Similar to when a user in the 'Banned' group posts in MapleTip Complaints, but members can only view and reply to their own topics.

I've seen this in practise on many forums, notably here and here.

It will save the frequent mindless arguments, unnecessary 'drama' that tends to revolve around complaints. After all, only staff and administrators can resolve complaints, where community input is sometimes great, it is not essential when it comes to things such as warning disputes. Furthermore, like the report system, users can retain anonymity when complaining about others.

You can't fault me for trying!

[Tich]

That system does sound more logical. If it is possible to also see your own topics.

[Stephen]

No, I use their arguments to find fatal flaws that would win the case. Besides, what's wrong with debating?

If you don't like the complaints forum, don't go there.

[Manoz]

No, I use their arguments to find fatal flaws that would win the case. Besides, what's wrong with debating?

If you don't like the complaints forum, don't go there.

There's nothing wrong with debating, that's why we have a debate forum. I'd hardly call some of the stuff that goes off in complaints 'debating' though.

I have no issues with the complaints forum myself. In fact, I frequent it quite often. As I mentioned, this is just something to contemplate or 'debate' as you will, I thought that it was a useful idea at the time...

[Stephen]

Well it's a debate and others can share their opinions. I don't see why we should be limiting opinions.

[SoIntoYou]

Some of the members who complain thinks the admins/mods/etc are being biased, and wants input from other members.

[Suri]

If limiting opinions means preventing flame wars, then yes, you should limit opinions.

Unfortunately, because the internet is pretty much anonymous, people don't feel the need to remain civil and debate rationally.

So yeah, I agree with Manoz's suggestion, as much as I like reading the complaints section. :>

EDIT: SoIntoYou has a point, though.

[Manoz]

Some of the members who complain thinks the admins/mods/etc are being biased, and wants input from other members.

What exactly can the members do though? They do not have the power to lower an individual's warn level etc. It is up to the admins and mods to be impartial. I think it's fair to say that the team is so large and broad that they can all input to prevent bias.

[Adobaby]

Disagree.

Members who are complaining don't want to see support just from mods who are all in the same boat. They want to get support from other members. A lot of the warns don't even make sense when compared to the rules list, yet moderators agree that these warns were valid.

Bottom Line: If it works, don't fix it.

[EmVee]

Disagree.

Members who are complaining don't want to see support just from mods who are all in the same boat. They want to get support from other members. A lot of the warns don't even make sense when compared to the rules list, yet moderators agree that these warns were valid.

Bottom Line: If it works, don't fix it.

The moderators most likely won't be in the same boat [about a warn] unless [a warn] is completely valid.

This post has been edited by ChocolateCake: 06 July 2008 - 04:33 PM

[Adobaby]

Disagree.

Members who are complaining don't want to see support just from mods who are all in the same boat. They want to get support from other members. A lot of the warns don't even make sense when compared to the rules list, yet moderators agree that these warns were valid.

Bottom Line: If it works, don't fix it.

The moderators most likely won't be in the same boat [about a warn] unless [a warn] is completely valid.

Wrong. All were in the same boat for my banned. I came out unbanned. UNVALID. Nice try. *pat on the back*

[SoIntoYou]

What exactly can the members do though? They do not have the power to lower an individual's warn level etc. It is up to the admins and mods to be impartial. I think it's fair to say that the team is so large and broad that they can all input to prevent bias.

Basically what Stephen said - there are more members than mods anyway; you never know when they might point something out that staff members overlooked:

No, I use their arguments to find fatal flaws that would win the case.

Plus, it gives them less of a reason to complain and say "mods here are biased" since members, not just staff and admin, would state their opinions on the matter as well.

[IndoX]

Wrong. All were in the same boat for my banned. I came out unbanned. UNVALID. Nice try. *pat on the back*

Actually, it was. It's just the warn system wasn't working at the time, so they couldn't up your warn level to 100%. Stephen only saw the warn system that day. If the warn system was working, you'd still be banned.

I actually agree with this, but seeing as Stephen doesn't, it's most like it won't be implemented.

[Adobaby]

Wrong. All were in the same boat for my banned. I came out unbanned. UNVALID. Nice try. *pat on the back*

Actually, it was. It's just the warn system wasn't working at the time, so they couldn't up your warn level to 100%. Stephen only saw the warn system that day. If the warn system was working, you'd still be banned.

Try to stay on topic, please.
Off Topic: By "they" you mean Spion. Spion couldn't up me to 100% so he decided to ban me. Stephen = unban. If it was working, he'd be banning a 49 year old guy cause as Stephen said, it all matters on what your profile age was at. So in that case, I would have been unbanned.

On Topic: I don't see any reason to take it off except to help moderators dominate the complain threads.

[IndoX]

Try to stay on topic, please.
Off Topic: By "they" you mean Spion. Spion couldn't up me to 100% so he decided to ban me. Stephen = unban. If it was working, he'd be banning a 49 year old guy cause as Stephen said, it all matters on what your profile age was at. So in that case, I would have been unbanned.

I just HAVE to address this.

Besides, I was the first one to check the report this morning, saw you were 15 but didn't act to do my little moderator statistic thing. You can't slip through this one boy.

You would've stayed banned, because he originally saw that your age was 15 in your profile, and changing your age isn't an excuse. Don't confuse "what matters is what's on your profile" with "what matters is what's on the warn system."

It was a matter of the warn system, not your profile age. If the warn system was working properly that day, you would've stayed banned.

/fin

[Adobaby]

Try to stay on topic, please.
Off Topic: By "they" you mean Spion. Spion couldn't up me to 100% so he decided to ban me. Stephen = unban. If it was working, he'd be banning a 49 year old guy cause as Stephen said, it all matters on what your profile age was at. So in that case, I would have been unbanned.

I just HAVE to address this.

Besides, I was the first one to check the report this morning, saw you were 15 but didn't act to do my little moderator statistic thing. You can't slip through this one boy.

You would've stayed banned, because he originally saw that your age was 15 in your profile, and changing your age isn't an excuse. Don't confuse "what matters is what's on your profile" with "what matters is what's on the warn system."

It was a matter of the warn system, not your profile age. If the warn system was working properly that day, you would've stayed banned.

/fin

Good thing that age was wrong then and I fixed it. And by stayed banned that means banned on Adobaby. Working on Adowinner. /fin

On Topic: The fact that someone with an actual position tries to take member's posts our is suspicious to me. Normally, moderators who are there to stand for the people would want the people's support.

[Juicy]

Not trying to backseat, please don't shoot me >.<, but settle this through PM's not on a completely irrelevant thread.

I like the system we currently have, it allows many views to be pointed out, some that might have been over looked.