Warning removal request time | Feedback ==> and behaviour part

[thEnd]

Implement of "interest conflict" in the warning and reports (democracy)
As FM who issued a warning might not always have a clear pic and would wish to not remove a warning as that would show his "beeing wrong" a higher authority would be able to deal with warn removal.

Also "offtopic" and closing threats to "avoid drama"..

Oftopics are considered when someone posts:
"Lol" etc
Or anything completely away from the discussion.

[Rawrplus]

Your points of view have been noted by an Emperor.

- The warning system will be more clearer and accurate
- The warning removal will be redone with regulations in place to help avoid issues like this
- The forum administration (everyone with forum priviledges) has been reminded about the use of the warning system as a last resort.
- The reminder of free speech, should it be criticising with valid points of view is to be upheld on this forum as long as it complies with the Forum Rules.

Check this ^ reply theEnd

Regarding the actual topic here, I feel like Raven gave you a very solid and point-blank directions we're leaning towards, we of course want a fair discussion on the forums. After all, that's the main part of the forums - to discuss. We've been trying to improve the situation regarding the "acceptance of critique" - eg. the recent "If you could change one thing" topic.

Naturally it's impossible to please everyone, but we're trying our best to make it free and also provide reasonable amount to freedom of speech. I mainly see two cases of critique in here:

1) Actually well constructed ones, also suggesting how to fix it.
2) Just stupid nitpicking.

I, personally, have been trying to pay attention to both, because sometimes, although it can be hard, people can have a very valid point and it can be something we can work on. I know being the 'rebel' gets you loads of negative feedback but it also helps us to improve. We in highstaff certainly don't sugarcoat the reality and are doing our best to improve the community.

As Raven noted, there was a topic released regarding the "Freedom of speech" and so on - in our Forum Administration Headquarters. We hope that everbody will be pleased with our new approach, I think it will not only create a lot more friendlier environment but actually create room to improve. I agree with some cases, that the moderation over certain posts has been a tad too harsh, we won't discourage warning for straight out offensive replies, but now, the posts with well articulated suggestions and feedback shall no longer be mindlessly removed and the OP warned.

If you have any questions, ask here, now!

If not, the topic will be locked in 3 days :-)


Regards
R+ and the HS team

[thEnd]

Yes I clearly see the points. My previous reply was regarding not only warnings but also admin/staff reports. In many cases I've seen an interest conflict. I can give an example of : if you are in a court. And you have a reasonable doubts about the jugde or the sentence - when you do apeal - there is no more the same institution nor the jugde. In this case I meant - warning removal apeal if it's issued by a FM, the review would be done by the UC or higher. If the warning is done by the UC review must be done by "green or red". If the warn is given by "green or red" you are in trouble

However the same aplies for the reports as I've seen some UC solving the cases where they were involved. None of the case was reasonable but however I'm speaking about the system for the future.

It's good to see some positive and open review by the staff on this. Ambrosia is getting better with everyday only by moving on and developing. Trashing suggestions would not help anyway so also suggestion board could be altered IMHO but that's a diffirent story.

I really wish to see more fun and warm welcoming and understanding from the staff about the moderation and warning, especially the new members. It's sad to see how the new members are warned for "wrong supports" when actually all they wanted is give some support to some of their friends.

[Rawrplus]

I actually really like the review system, although I don't really see a way for a review.

I'd say, it would be better if it was optional, because we at highstaff (least to my knowledge) have no way of checking the warnings unles we spent hours in logs or checked each and every member profile individually one by one.

But a optional board, for a warning review sounds definitely like a good idea. I'll probably go with this suggestion :-)

[Raven E II R]

Forum Moderation Reviews (FMR) are now set up. New protocols for members of the Forum Moderator Group that applies to (Universe Creators, Head Admins, Head Admin Assistants, Forum Moderators & Local Moderators) has been drafted by me and it awaiting assent by Emperors and Community Leader and will hopefully be in full force very soon.

With that said, this suggestion and some of its contents has been accepted.