Double Standards

[DeletedUser]

not really

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd like to keep this uncluttered, so my response is in spoilers. If you want to read a wall of text, feel free .

Spoiler: Long Post

Now, I had made a very nice and long post tearing arguments up. Fortunately for you, I closed this by mistake. So I'll try to keep this short and to the point.

From the start, I wish to make it clear I have no issues with the moderation of the forums themselves, more the double standards that have taken over.

The forums rules state:


Now, its clear that double standards have been adopted, for moderators to be allowed to use things that are otherwise illegal to the wider community is adopting the same argument as: I enforce the rules therefore I don't have to abide by them. The second part of the rules that I have taken is that a moderator is a normal community member with permission to moderate a specific/set of forum(s). As such, for them to be treated as "any other player" surely rules have to be adhered to?

I'm sorry, but the idea that the rules exist and therefore it isn't fair is the most preposterous yet proposed. Just because a law is in place, doesn't mean that it can't be changed on account of need. Familiar with laws regarding segregation and slavery being banned? What if, just like you'd said, everyone had gone "Oh, the law says it's allowed, so I'm going to allow it." Is that supposed to happen like that? I apologize, we didn't fix the rules before applying the change that so many of us were unaware was even going to happen. Does that further mean that we are executing double standards? Rather, you are executing your own double standards, having said numerous times throughout this post that you volunteered to help the forums and then breaking said rules with an illegal signature, seemingly out of spite. Does that make you any more qualified than us, if you act in such a manner? I'd think not.

Actually, there is a lot wrong with what your saying. Animated avatars are such a small point, however, they are an example of double standards, something which is simply wrong to exist. As somebody who should be treated as a normal forum member, other than the necessary tools needed to moderate your specific forum's nothing else is necessary. Having an animated avatar is actually in violation of the forum's rules - going without punishment for breaking the rules that your enforce is the part people have an issue with.

Once more, talking about rules that can easily be changed. Once more, we apologize for the delay in changing them .

The reason your name is in red it so that you can be identified for being a moderator, that is necessary for your job to be done. I would also like to make a distinction between working and volunteering. Volunteering is working for no personal reward. Work you get paid for an are entitled to receive what your company offers. You are a volunteer hired by the CM, not InnoGames, you do not sign a contract nor are you paid, thus you are not entitled to receive any payment. Receiving a healthy amount of PP (and yes, I do know, I was a mod) is plenty for what is a voluntary role. As a normal member you applied to be a moderator knowing the reward would be PP - if you wanted something different for your work, why apply at all?

And yet, you provide no reasoning as to why your definition is preferred. Once more, let me provide the first definition from dictionary.com:

vol·un·teer   
1.
a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.

Is that one not sufficient? Let me find another:

1vol·un·teer noun
1
: a person who voluntarily undertakes or expresses a willingness to undertake a service

Perhaps the point is, you are not using the same definition of volunteer that I, the forum team, the CM, and Innogames are? The one that actually pertains to the situation at hand? Once more, let me reiterate: I did not ask for animated avatars. Quite frankly, I didn't know they were in place until these threads began. I don't expect anything for my moderating, but I am arguing that it is rather unfair for those of you who are arguing to say that moderators who are given perks without asking for them don't deserve them at the very least (especially when they're as trivial as this).

The point being made is not that you have animated avatars, you seem to be looking at this in the wrong way. More it is of the double standards that occur. One rule for the community, another for the moderators - that is the fundamental issue that has arisen. As a volunteer, you a fortunate to receive PP, your analogy of the shop working is wrong as you are not employed. Its more like saying you volunteer at a charity shop and expect discount from their stuff - its just not right. You seem to expect that you should be above the ordinary forum go-ers.

If the problem is "double-standards", a ridiculous argument at best, let's look at the rules now:

"Avatars may not exceed 100 x 100 Pixels. Animated images and links with referrer-IDs are not allowed. (There may be some exceptions to this rule)"

Well, guess that's solved. Thread closed?

Again, you're arguing that I "seem to expect" something, when in fact I do not. Had I expected things like this, I would've known animated avatars were being put in place. I did not. I am rather tired of reiterating this. I am also rather exhausted of reiterating that those moderators who receive premium (you claiming it is more than enough) but do not play the game are effectively given nothing. And while they may not expect anything, it was given to the moderators, not asked for.

As volunteers, your entitled for nothing. I worked on these forums for longer than most here and numerous people will support me on this. I didn't do it for any personal gain or PP's - nor was I entitled to get them. I volunteered to help, just because I didn't get a title doesn't mean I'm less than you are. What annoys me is the moderators abusing the rules where it is clear that what they are doing is illegal as stated in the rules of the forum.

As stated just above, the rules are now clear, so that's all fixed, right? As volunteers, we are entitled to nothing. But when one volunteers, and a college gives them a scholarship, they weren't "entitled to it". They were given it. When that student gets preference upon applying, they are given that preference. They don't necessarily expect it. When one volunteers, they don't need to expect thanks from those they help, but if they are given thanks, does that make it unfair for everyone who aren't being thanked for not volunteering? The ideas you propose are staggering, and only show that you did not read the thread for prior arguments that you are further reiterating.

Expressing that "life is unfair" just shows the strength of your argument - flimsy to say the least. Unfair isn't the issue, neither are animated images. As I have said before and will say again, the issue is double standards and apparent different sets of rules.

Rules have been changed. All fixed? All I can see, besides this, is that you are once more examining the idea of "unfair". I believe I more than addressed that above, so I'll move on.

A simple way to remove this unnecessary lag is to prevent the ability for anybody to do it. As often occurs, numerous moderators post in the same thread. On slower internet connections (e.g mobile phones) any animated images slow down the page load time. As they are not necessary for the moderators work to be carried out, why should a mod be entitled to this? Again, resolving to the double standards apparent in the forums.

Numerous moderators post, perhaps. How often? In what threads? Is it overwhelming? I doubt it, on all these counts. If that problem ever arises and causes complaints, that'll be fine. But you are looking at the end results without the reasons things reach said end results, which is preposterous.

If they are not all as "fun" as you make out, why do you use them? They're not necessary and as you are the only ones allowed to use them its clearly your ego requiring glorification. You even agree it makes no difference to your moderation so why not abide by the rules and remove it? Again, as I have previously said, when you applied to be a mod, you knew of the rewards, using the argument that you "might" not use PP is pointless. I am one of the people that has spent the most time here (and many will support me on this). I did it for no reward other than to help a community I have been a long standing member of.

You've already resolved to creating some sorts of insults against us for the simple reason that we have received something as a gift that you did not. I use them because while they may be somewhat entertaining for other users, I get no special "huge" kick out of them personally. They don't significantly enhance my forum experience, how I moderate, or how I post and see communication with other players. Removing something for no reason, however, when it is somewhat entertaining in the slightest, is also a waste...Yes, you did it for no reward. Nor did I. I didn't apply to be a moderator, nor do I moderate, for the reward. But if a reward is pressed on you, given to you directly, without you asking, are you going to refuse it for no reason? It's like sending back the premium you earned as a moderator...why should you get extra premium? Because, even as a volunteer, the game/team feels you should be rewarded for your hard work, and for those who don't use that premium the reward is something trivial but still entertaining. Would you strip them of that, as well?

So, based on your argument, I deserve a reward, any suggestions on what I am entitled to?

Oh, taking things out of context, are we? I feel you've sufficiently shown the levels to which you can sink, I will refuse to respond to such a low, debasing argument as this.

No, I don't believe that moderators should have no perks, they do get a healthy amount of PP and volunteer to upkeep a community. However, they should be treated on the same level as the ordinary user and not have double standards existing.

Ordinary users don't get premium, but moderators do. Moderators should be treated on the same level as an ordinary user, however...

Wait, I'm the one using double standards ?

As for the unsubstantial premium, as an ex-mod, I can assure you that the premium levels are healthy for a voluntary role. Ordinary forum posters do an equal role in the forums life, without them the forum's would be nothing - hence my argument for the removal of double standards.

Yes, the forums would be nothing, but they do not put hours into the forums for the sake of making the forums better, they put hours in for their own agendas.

Now, I haven't come here to argue, more to prove a point at the obnoxious attitude adapted by some. I have to say based on your views that you expect to receive awards I must question your reasons behind being a moderator?

Obnoxious? And I'm using double standards? I have been perfectly cordial, I have discussed with you as I would an equal, even endeavored to answer every legitimate point despite responding to the same points over and over again, and I am obnoxious? Thus far, I have seen attacks on the moderators' egos, their personalities, their arguments, etc., but the obnoxious ones are the ones who are taking things out of context and insulting people? Well, I'll leave that to the forum to decide, but I personally hope that I've been polite enough with you all, considering the amount of time I've had to put into answering each and every question, each and every argument, all the while moderating my forums and ensuring that you have a good place to post .

Finally, I will leave you with this, in order to prove a point, I will be using an animated signature in the correct sizes. This is to remove the point of double standards. I want equality for all, one set of rules, up held and followed by all.

Double-standards don't get much sweeter than this .

Please leave this thread open until the community manager has responded as I believe him to be the solo person able to define the rules and outline to the community the outline of this debate.

Spoiler: Animated Sig

The community manager made the decision, and the rules have been altered to accommodate what has changed...

From now on, I will be linking people to appropriate posts, because I don't believe you all want to have to read me saying the same things over, and over, and over again when it's been made clear and left unrefuted the first 3 times around .

 

[DeletedUser]

tl;dr

I'm assuming its what I heard from you last night so I shouldn't have to read it

 

[DeletedUser]

You'd assume correctly. I've had to repeat it many times already .

 

[DeletedUser]

Can't you just lock this thread?

The preliminary reason for it appears to be the whole "you have animated avatars and we don't" argument which got broken down, and subsequently locked, in another thread. It seems pointless having this one still open. From previous experiences of my own, and seeing this player argue in the same method as when I was once a .net troll, this will continue to be argued however pointless the arguments become...

 

[DeletedUser]

This is not my area to decide on, if The SmashNasty decides to close this thread, it is entirely his choice .

 

[DeletedUser]

The reason I decided to allow the animated profile pictures for mods is:

1. The mods become more visible when looking at a thread. (I know the name is a different colour but this underlines their position even more.)
2. A mod's job is probably more difficult and time intensive then the general public thinks. Giving them the freedom to choose their own animated picture is a small freedom that will be allowed. I assume mods from other servers will understand this.
3. Dealing with me as a CM leads to insanity if you are a mod. The antidote is an animated picture

"Wolfy"

P.S.: Someone in this thread asked if I am leaving the forum. No, I will not. I will be the CM here for a while!

 

[DeletedUser]

Case closed