Quote from citricsquid
yup, completely random. The process works in 3 stages:
1. Every comment on the Facebook status is loaded into a database:
2. A process runs that parses the comments and finds the usernames in each comment. Then it checks with minecraftforum.net if that account exists and if it does it stores the usernames and the account ID:
As you can see the columns on the far right are the MCF Username and MCF ID, for the first 2 people (Jonathon La, Tyler Christianson) the names they provided aren't valid (they are minecraft.net names, not minecraftforum.net names) so they get "0" and "0" set, which means they don't get entered.
3. A process runs that loads all the legitimate accounts into memory (everyone that has provided a valid MCF name), it then removes anyone from that list that has already won and removes duplicates (everyone only gets 1 entry) and it then picks 20 random names from that list, assigns them each a code from my database of valid codes and then it sends a private message to each one and outputs to me who they are.
So as long as you meet the following criteria:
1. Your username was posted on the Facebook post in the required fashion (just your username)
2. You have not won already
You are entered to win every time we randomly pick 20 winners.
If you comment again it won't hurt you, but no advantage unless you think the first time you posted your name might not have been valid etc.
We don't pick the people ourselves, we don't look at their profile, there is no possible way for bias. You entered a contest, with the possibility of winning something, you shouldn't have had the expectation of winning.
There are 100 total codes. There were 32 thousand comments on the Facebook page and 9 thousand likes. If only the likes were unique people, that means you had a 1.11% chance to win.
We know pretty is banned. She should have still received an email for her code, we also know "hi" hasn't been active, but they'd receive an email as well.
0
Preferred sure, but preference doesn't need to be a rule, and especially not a rule for locking threads if the rule itself can't be clearly defined.
0
Yes, that's his stance on it. His position is that the vague rule is dumb. Your position is that it is needed. That's not the same as being closed minded.
It'd be the same as if people were requesting a different change that you'd think is bad. For me, it'd be people requesting bumping rules be completely removed, I think it's an absolutely bad decision, but if someone can provide enough reason to change my mind then fine, I'll change my mind.
If we're going grab a quote from his posts though-
1
He's not being closed minded, he disagrees with you. Neither of you have presented any arguments that have swayed me in the slightest. You can claim he's closed minded as much as he can claim you are.
If it's so easy, give me 2 examples. 1 of something that is just barely too vague, and 1 that has enough to not be locked. I can do that easy with swearing, flaming, spam, bumping, advertising, behaving maliciously, or engaging in illegal activity that violates United States law. Because all of those are either it is or it isn't, there isn't a scale to it, it's binary. Vagueness is not.
Edit: In addition, all of the suggestion specific rules I can give an example of one that violates and one that doesn't without going to extremes.
3
Some people simply don't want moderators policing something as subjective as vagueness.
Besides that, your requirements are vague. What "facts and evidence" do you need to support adding a decorative block? Isn't "Well, I think it'd be nice to have" enough reason for why there are half the blocks in Minecraft? What do you need to say to justify having a hanging light added such as a wall mounted candle or chandelier, or a new decorative nether block, such as something hidden under the lava lakes like hardened obsidian or magma rock? If I were a new member, your requirements would make me feel like I can't post decorative ideas, because I can't find facts or evidence to support adding them, because there are already blocks that cover their functionality and decorative ones are never necessary. The why is basically going to amount to a variation of "because it'd be cool" or "because it'd be pretty." The how isn't clear what you're asking. How is it added, or how is it acquired, or how does it behave? All very different answer based on what you meant.
0
No, I didn't say that at all. Not responding professionally does not mean flaming. I haven't insulted you at all. If I flame someone, I'll still get an infraction. Doesn't matter that I was a mod or was an admin.
The time and time again isn't specifically at you, but I do admit I should have been more clear on that one since I do reuse the same words. For that I do apologize for my lack of clarity. In many occasions, I've had to clarify that I am not staff anymore, and my responses are not official statements.
Additionally, I'm not attacking you. I'm disagreeing with you, and then you make assumptions that I do not support or agree with and argue those. Much like I disagree with you saying that mods should be concerned with maximizing traffic. I disagree, site admins should be concerned with traffic, telling forum admins to make changes where necessary, which are passed onto moderators. Mods themselves should be concerned with anything beyond their job (which includes what the forum admins and site admins tell them).
No, mods shouldn't get away with anything, they should be held to the same exact rules as everyone else, with the addition of a reminder that because of their title, what they say can and will be read as official in nearly every capacity.
I also don't have a power base. I post here infrequently, normally I don't get into long posts like this because I don't have the time, but I felt like responding to you in short form wouldn't be ideal either, as I thought you'd likely feel I wasn't reading your entire post or were just quickly reacting to a single snip and not reading the context.
Also, seeing as how I am not staff, why should my concern be specifically be retaining you as a customer?
Edit:
I do not see what I am doing as flaming, but very well, I will stop. Didn't see this before I had already made this post. Sorry if you did not want to continue the discussion, I will not respond further.
0
You're accusing me of doing my former job wrong. I'm perfectly entitled to respond, and since I'm retired I don't have to respond in a professional manner. While I was an admin, would I have responded like that? Probably not, but I'm not an admin anymore.
If you walk up to a person who retired from being a manager at WalMart, told them they were doing their job wrong because they got moved up too fast and weren't properly trained, do you think they're going to respond professionally? I don't, they don't have to. I'm fairly sarcastic an snarky in person, so I'd respond the same way. "Haha, do you have any proof of that?" Same thing here. I'm not staff, I don't have to behave in a professional manner at all times of my life just because at one time I was a forum admin.
We call ourselves staff, we call moderators staff, and we call those who retire "retired staff". It isn't an overblown sense of purpose, just an easy to use word that fits well enough.
Now who's showing an overblown ego? No, I didn't take personal offense, yes I disagree, so I responded. Time and time again, I need to repeat, I am not staff. Time and time again, I seem to have to explain how moderators don't need to concern themselves with site hits, traffic, etc. they only need to concern themselves with their job. You also quote my post in a way to misrepresent what I was saying, and set it up to seem like I'm responding to something I wasn't is intentionally misleading.
No, you aren't treated like "ungrateful cattle". People are responding and discussing things with you. If you were ungrateful cattle to us, my post would have been "shut up and do as you're told". That, even if I'm not staff, isn't something I would do.
If I didn't care at all, I wouldn't respond, but you're taking disagreeing as poor treatment of customers. That's simply untrue. We're responding because we disagree and if we can find mutual ground, that's what would be best. How you're acting, however, is very abrasive and is going to elicit more passionate responses because you're telling all of us that 1) You're bad/were bad at your job 2) If we reply with anything but "Yes, I'll take that into consideration", we're bad at our job/former job.
0
That quote was responding to something else. I don't have contempt for customers, but trying to take something out of context and stripping the last sentence to make it seem like I'm targeting a specific group over giving a comparison of two difference groups that no matter what we do with the rules, there will be a group that doesn't like it and says we're doing our job wrong doesn't really do much to help.
"1) Volunteered to help take care of a massive back log, cleaning nearly 600 reports myself in one night (I think that's around the number), which included multiple page problems.
2) Volunteered to assist in multiple sections which they did not have enough staff.
3) Did my job without need of correction.
4) Spent many, many, many hours nearly every day on the forums, almost exclusively moderating until the report levels at a low number.
5) A forum admin had to quit due to health reasons, and I was the best fit to cover his position."
Yeah, there was more to it. See 1 and 3. More of a "quantity and quality" than simply time.
No, I didn't keep forum admin because I went through the back log. This happened before I was forum admin. As for quality, no I didn't have a quality issue at all, and 600 reports, not 600 posts. You're making assumptions based on what? Maybe you should know I spent nearly 12 hours doing just that. It wasn't rushing, not by my standard. Again, I did all of that without a single incident of quality, yet you're questioning the quality?
If a moderator can't do the work, they don't just get to keep it. I've fired people from moderator position for not doing the work, for doing the work wrong, or for abusing their power in any way.
Again, because a mod shouldn't be concerned with that. They should be concerned with the job they're doing, not the website itself. My job was to enforce the rules as fairly as I can to every person and every report. That's what the training was for.
Which is why that was a mere mention to make sure I am being clear. No, I wasn't trained via a school or something, everything was done on site. Read material on how to do my job, read material on what to/not to do, read material on additional information. At the time, then I talked to an admin about it, asked questions, then was told go ahead and get started, and any time I wasn't entirely sure, I was to ask how to handle it.
Later, when I was admin, I added a requirement of me or a specific other person if I was too busy with something else to walk through a report with them. It isn't how I was trained, but it is how I thought it could be improved. Again, even after the walkthrough with me, I told them if they are unsure at all, just ask, don't go with their gut unless they're 100% sure.
1) I'm not staff anymore, I'm retired.
2) Fired for what? For telling someone I wasn't just "given" something? For asking them to find where I made such a major mistake, since they're telling me that I must have been doing my job wrong? So no, I wouldn't be fired. The customer isn't always right and doesn't get what they want just because they said it.
3) Yeah, what do you want me to do? I'm not a mod, so I can't do mod stuff. I'm not an admin, so I can't do admin stuff. I'm effectively the same as a member, so I can do member stuff, including replying to things I want to reply to. The things I wanted to reply to are things I disagree with, which happens to have been your post.
As for not wanting to make this about mods, your entire first post is about how the mods are driving away customers. I disagreed and responded as a member with prior experience of being a mod/admin not as a mod or admin. Instead of responding to how aggressive moderation is actually effecting traffic and revenue (since I don't have the numbers it would be pointless for me to respond to those), I address your points specifically.
You have a weird view of what deserves people get fired over. In most jobs, complaints don't go directly to the person being complained about, and if they do, that person is told to tell them to go to the proper people to file complaints. They aren't supposed to handle it, they're told to ignore it and direct them to the proper place.
3
If by training you mean "Sent to a school somewhere", none. Everything was done on site, in which I had to read 3 large threads (each about the size of your post, probably longer), have a discussion with admins telling me how/what to do, telling me if I don't know something don't immediately act on it, ask for help. After that, for about the first week, my mod actions were monitored to make sure I wasn't abusing power.
Now, why did I advance so quickly? Probably because at the time I
1) Volunteered to help take care of a massive back log, cleaning nearly 600 reports myself in one night (I think that's around the number), which included multiple page problems.
2) Volunteered to assist in multiple sections which they did not have enough staff.
3) Did my job without need of correction.
4) Spent many, many, many hours nearly every day on the forums, almost exclusively moderating until the report levels at a low number.
5) A forum admin had to quit due to health reasons, and I was the best fit to cover his position.
People don't become mods just by asking for it, and we try our best to weed out the ones who lack the temperament for it. No, we aren't perfect at it and sometimes a bad egg does get in the mix, but we've also tried to quickly get rid of them as mods when found out. It isn't like we can't look into what a mod did and determine they aren't a good fit for the role.
As for aggressive moderation of paying customers, no matter how the rules are structured, people will complain. People complain because there are any rules at all and they want a free for all. People complain because they think we're too harsh on some things, and not harsh enough on others. We've had people leave due to both reasons.
Mods don't connect those dots and shouldn't. Their only requirements to the forums should be enforce the rules and follow the rules. The Site Admins are and should be the only ones that care about the revenue directly, and if there is a problem, they tell the forum admins, who tell the mods to change how they're doing things. Of course when someone gets a temp ban, they might never come back, should we not ban then because it hurts our ad revenue?
As for the example you're giving, yes a mod can be dismissive. Admins (Site and Forum) are the ones that can't just be dismissive, and complaints of that scale should be directed to the admins anyways. When I was a moderator, I don't know how many times I got told I was abusing my power because I deleted a flaming post by a well liked user. Or gave someone an infraction for literally multiple pages of bumps. I got accused of being friends of a certain server and protecting that server because another group was harassing them, and I was the mod responsible for taking care of the thread that was an ongoing flame war. It was so bad that I had to temp lock the thread in order to catch up to where they currently were, just because deleting posts was taking too long for me to do just by myself.
Yes, mods deal with all sorts of things here: flaming, spam, whatever gets reported, and they should expect some level of "dealing with idiots" and know how to handle themselves. Most of them do. The ones that don't need to be talked to. Simple as that.
Haha, you think I was just "given" it like I did nothing to deserve it? Please, if I was so bad for the job, why don't you go find what I did wrong. I'll wait.
I was "given" FA during a time when the entirety of Mapping and Modding basically didn't trust admins/mods. So that was fun. Rather than simply doing whatever I wanted, I put a few things to public vote, see what our users wanted, and based my further implementations on that feedback. I got the section to go from hatred and distrust to the majority that were invested in that section liking me and my staff.
Did I feel exploited? No. I could've told them "No, I don't want to be a forum admin" and that would've been the end of it. I wasn't forced into anything, I volunteered for every single thing I did. If I had a problem doing any of it, I wouldn't have done it.
As I can't see deleted posts, I can't particularly comment on this.
The few things I can say are: Yes, talking about deletions are off topic. Make a thread in Forum Discussion (where you can talk about it no problem) or send a PM.
Off-topic isn't a rule made out of thin air. http://www.minecraftforum.net/meta/rules#do:on-topic Just because it isn't undo "do not" doesn't mean nothing of it is enforced.
Of course moderators are going to defend their actions, they have every right to do so. Just because a mod or admin responds to you doesn't mean they didn't listen to anything you said. They're discussing with you, just like in my old thread multiple mods/admins discussed with me. They didn't see the same problem I did, or didn't agree with it, so I continued talking until it was clear. Responding with mods/admins was useful to clearing it up on both sides and ending with an discussion that I was happy with.
1
Moderators have to enforce the rules. If you get a rule that is just "Made Up" then report it to an admin to be handled. As far as I'm aware, mods select which rule was violated through a drop-down with an "other" selection for rules that are not currently specifically listed but certainly violate the spirit of the rules, or are clearly done by someone trying to circumvent or push how far they can push the rules before they get an infraction.
In addition, just because someone says X doesn't mean X is correct. Considering I've been told by some members that staff banned people who just left the forum, told we banned someone for no reason when they were sending PMs threatening violence or implying satisfaction over violence towards a specific race, and it doesn't take into account anything else that is recorded previously into account... It could have been a multitude of other reasons + maybe they're a sock puppet, but they only tell you that one part.
Finally, no, you aren't at risk of being banned. They made me a mod. Two months later, they made me a forum admin. While I understand what you're feeling if you feel the need to post "this might get me banned," that doesn't happen. When people do get infractions/banned for "complaining", it's normally because they either went off the deep end on "well, if I'm getting banned I might as well make it worth it" mentality, and the few that aren't are because they're still violating rules a dozen times while voicing their complaint. Normally flaming, lots of flaming.
0
Something to note between rules and if an infraction will be applied is generally the first time you'll get an informal warning unless it is something very clearly defined or you did it to an excessive degree, or if you do something to try to circumvent a rule.
Some examples would be if a server spammed the word "bump" for multiple pages (we've seen this plenty of times). Even if it was your first warning, chances are it wouldn't be informal if you had several pages of bumps, because it's clearly in the rules not to do it and it's done to an excessive degree. Another one I've seen is people literally starting off a post with "I know it's against the rules, but..." normally right before they insult someone.
Other than cases like above, the first infraction should be informal just as a reminder to read the rules real quick.
1
1. Report the thread to be moved and a moderator will handle it.
2. Not all parents are great with computers, and they're trying to do something for their child to enjoy. They also don't always intend to spend a lot of time on the forums, so why should they have to take the time to fill out their profile to ask a single question?
3. People make accounts for various reasons. There were some people that only made accounts only to participate in off-topic sections. If you don't like the thread and it isn't breaking forum rules, ignore it and find another thread.
4. This forum is used by people of many different ages, and by people who learned English as a second/third/fourth/fifth/etc. language. Their level of competency of English isn't important.
5. Why care how someone wants to have fun? Again, there are people of all ages on this forum, sometimes when a child can't complete something, they want someone else to do it so they can just explore around "their" map and have fun again.
6. Something obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else. Slightly relevant XKCD time-
7. Depending on the context, report it. If someone makes a thread looking for a server, and someone tells them a server that fits the description they want, no problem. If someone advertises their map in someone else's map thread, report it.
And, as said before, if any of them bother you, just ignore them and find a thread you like. Thousands of posts are made every day, some of them are bound to not be something you enjoy.
1
0
In addition to this- It'd also bring locked threads back to the top of the list. So, say there's an event that makes people want to post their own threads even though there is a mega thread (IE, some big announcement that affects Mojang and the future of Minecraft), a dozen or so redundant topics are locked, but they keep being posted in by the OP ("This is unfair!" comments or just "updating" the thread anyways even though it's locked), and suddenly the front page stays full of threads that most users can't post in and non-redundant threads have to compete with them.
2
Giving thanks is that little green button. You can only give it once, and then it becomes and X that you can choose to take away, and you can only give it to posts that are not your own.
1
Not all words are going to be censored, but that doesn't give you the right to use them. The filter is basically "These are going to be commonly used even if we say they aren't allowed, and since we aren't omniscient we can't catch all of them." It's a means of easing the workload for the mods/admins and making the forums friendlier in general.
And yes, people will use words to insult each other unless we ban the entire dictionary. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use a filter for the common ones and doesn't mean we should just allow it because we can't filter all of them.