Due to there being no response / rebutal provided by staff to my statements originally regarding rule 1.3.2, I've come today looking to see if anybody else feels as I do.
For those of you who do not know, this is rule 1.3.2:
1.3.2 Do not spam the reports/chat-reports/support ticket system with the same reason or content.
On the surface, a fair and justified rule. When in practice? A hypocritical idealism.
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/224150/
^^^^^^^^^^
This is a thread where, summarized, a user reported 10 or so threads that broke MC-Market's rules or TOS. They were threads that even Justis Said needed to be taken down. However, the user who reported these threads in bulk received a warning point. What are warning points? Essentially, receiving enough of them turns into a suspension, and eventual ban. (In a nutshell). To further the context of this issue:
I responded to Justis's post justifying his reasoning for issuing warning points to users who rightfully report rule breaking threads with the following (Fair warning, it's long):
"Trigger Warning: My writing in debate format is not always viewed as friendly. I am arguing a point for something I really feel needs to be changed, and I am open minded to other's opinions. no flame pls
Anyway, This is the clearest display of hypocrisy and poor sizing I have ever seen on this forum.
Justis Rebutal: Justis. You're a Moderator. This is an undeniable fact. Rule 1.3.2 must be followed to a T. This is an undeniable fact. However, just as Rule 1.3.2 must be followed, as do every other rule on this forum. The goal of the "report" system is to report content that breaks the rules of the market. You, as a staff member and moderator of said forums are in charge of reviewing said reports and handling them each, individually. The first thing a close minded individual will think is that "That's a hefty job for one guy." This is where you and I disagree on thought process Justis. The MCM has over 50 thousand users of which over 300 or so could be on at the same time every minute. Bare minimum. If my numbers are wrong, they're pretty damn close. Of these 50 thousand users, there are only 10 staff members. 10 staff members must govern the affairs of 50 thousand users. Of these 50 thousand users, there are at least, 200 thousand posts that each must strictly follow community guidelines, to a T. You cannot argue that the 200 thousand posts don't necessarily need to follow the rules, as you may as well be saying "Well you can break them for certain reasons or certain scenarios, or I'm just lazy." Just as you've warned this user, and me on previous occassions, everyone else who breaks the rules no matter how small, insignifcant, or new must be dealt with.
Any sane person can view the above numbers and realize that it is improbable, not plausible, and impossible to properly manage and staff a forum of this size with a minimal staff team that we have. It is not that the staff are lazy, it is that the staff are too small and can only do but so much for this forum, hence; and correct me if im wrong, the creation of rule 1.3.2. You cannot justify that the rule was only made for spammy users with pointless reports, otherwise you would not have warned Riaz for writing 20 valid reports against threads that even you said broke the market rules. This is simply followed logic, and quite frankly, it's a hypocritical idealism.
It is not that Mick cannot hire more staff, (a suggestion that has been made numerous times, and received community wide support), and it is not that it isn't necessary, as just recently haven't we fired/lost 2 staff members? Teg and @Myuime have left/been removed for whatever the reason may be. Any way you see it, we're losing staff members, and are under staffed. Issues like this and rules like this would be non existent with a proper staff/userbase ratio.
Let's stick to the 300v10 idealism we're at now. 10 staff members to 300 or so active daily users on at any one point in time. That's a 30 to 1 user to staff base. Every staff member must account for 30 users at any given time of the day. Now, this cannot be seen as reasonable. Why? Because of the following simplistic ideology: Let's take the average college class of 30-35 students. The professor teaches said group for x amount of hours, and moves to a new group, similar to how our current staff moderate a said group, and move to the next one. However, in a real scenario, the teacher not only has breaks for lunch, or any other given reasons for x amount of time per day, but they also do not have to teach the full 24 hour period. They go home, go to bed, and come back the next day. Sometimes not even teaching the full week. MCM is never down (save for rare occassions of ddosing, etc), and it's userbase is consistently cycling throughout the day. Hence, minimal fluctuation of the 300 userbase. How are 10 people to monitor 300 users 24 hours a day? It is not physically possible. Thereby justifying the creation of rule 1.3.2. Oh wait? It's not justified. Hiring more staff resolves this issue. Something as minimal as doubling the current staff team can heavily reduce load times improve responsiveness to issues that just keep popping up over and over again, and the best part? These issues are so common now you have users volunteering to do it for free. and we all know staff are usually paid. Not to mention, those 10 staff I cited? Mick Is inclusive, as are the system admins, lyphiard, and people who do not handle support requests regularly, such as Justis.
Justis Is not a lazy individual. Do I disagree with his ruling on this warning? Oh hell yeah. Can he find a way to twist the wording and logic to technically justify it as it is still a rule? Oh hell yeah.
TLDR:
At the end of the day, you need a larger staff team Mick to avoid senseless and retarded issues such as this one. This has to be the biggest and saddest display of wasted capabilities of this forums since the Vice Incident where his support request was blatantly ignored over the consistent abuse of staff on his reputation. Everyday the forums continue to disappoint userbase. Not in the sense of not fixing issues, but not even responding to them.
Just my 50 cents."
The above logic is what I'm citing for reasoning as to remove or change the parameters in which a user may be issued a warning point for rightfully reporting threads, even in bulk. The main argument to the above is:
-Staff size, (Of which a solution has been offered)
-It "clogging" the reports section with "less important" reports, (As if to judge the severity of a rule when no severity for punishments are in place for anything but doxes, and ban evasion)
Both of which can be solved with a larger staff team and a better report system similar to one originally suggested by the user: Ivain Where you can select the severity or category of a report before making it, to help staff get to "the good shit," first.
Now, tell me I'm wrong.
Thank you,
-Zel
For those of you who do not know, this is rule 1.3.2:
1.3.2 Do not spam the reports/chat-reports/support ticket system with the same reason or content.
On the surface, a fair and justified rule. When in practice? A hypocritical idealism.
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/224150/
^^^^^^^^^^
This is a thread where, summarized, a user reported 10 or so threads that broke MC-Market's rules or TOS. They were threads that even Justis Said needed to be taken down. However, the user who reported these threads in bulk received a warning point. What are warning points? Essentially, receiving enough of them turns into a suspension, and eventual ban. (In a nutshell). To further the context of this issue:
I responded to Justis's post justifying his reasoning for issuing warning points to users who rightfully report rule breaking threads with the following (Fair warning, it's long):
"Trigger Warning: My writing in debate format is not always viewed as friendly. I am arguing a point for something I really feel needs to be changed, and I am open minded to other's opinions. no flame pls
Anyway, This is the clearest display of hypocrisy and poor sizing I have ever seen on this forum.
Justis Rebutal: Justis. You're a Moderator. This is an undeniable fact. Rule 1.3.2 must be followed to a T. This is an undeniable fact. However, just as Rule 1.3.2 must be followed, as do every other rule on this forum. The goal of the "report" system is to report content that breaks the rules of the market. You, as a staff member and moderator of said forums are in charge of reviewing said reports and handling them each, individually. The first thing a close minded individual will think is that "That's a hefty job for one guy." This is where you and I disagree on thought process Justis. The MCM has over 50 thousand users of which over 300 or so could be on at the same time every minute. Bare minimum. If my numbers are wrong, they're pretty damn close. Of these 50 thousand users, there are only 10 staff members. 10 staff members must govern the affairs of 50 thousand users. Of these 50 thousand users, there are at least, 200 thousand posts that each must strictly follow community guidelines, to a T. You cannot argue that the 200 thousand posts don't necessarily need to follow the rules, as you may as well be saying "Well you can break them for certain reasons or certain scenarios, or I'm just lazy." Just as you've warned this user, and me on previous occassions, everyone else who breaks the rules no matter how small, insignifcant, or new must be dealt with.
Any sane person can view the above numbers and realize that it is improbable, not plausible, and impossible to properly manage and staff a forum of this size with a minimal staff team that we have. It is not that the staff are lazy, it is that the staff are too small and can only do but so much for this forum, hence; and correct me if im wrong, the creation of rule 1.3.2. You cannot justify that the rule was only made for spammy users with pointless reports, otherwise you would not have warned Riaz for writing 20 valid reports against threads that even you said broke the market rules. This is simply followed logic, and quite frankly, it's a hypocritical idealism.
It is not that Mick cannot hire more staff, (a suggestion that has been made numerous times, and received community wide support), and it is not that it isn't necessary, as just recently haven't we fired/lost 2 staff members? Teg and @Myuime have left/been removed for whatever the reason may be. Any way you see it, we're losing staff members, and are under staffed. Issues like this and rules like this would be non existent with a proper staff/userbase ratio.
Let's stick to the 300v10 idealism we're at now. 10 staff members to 300 or so active daily users on at any one point in time. That's a 30 to 1 user to staff base. Every staff member must account for 30 users at any given time of the day. Now, this cannot be seen as reasonable. Why? Because of the following simplistic ideology: Let's take the average college class of 30-35 students. The professor teaches said group for x amount of hours, and moves to a new group, similar to how our current staff moderate a said group, and move to the next one. However, in a real scenario, the teacher not only has breaks for lunch, or any other given reasons for x amount of time per day, but they also do not have to teach the full 24 hour period. They go home, go to bed, and come back the next day. Sometimes not even teaching the full week. MCM is never down (save for rare occassions of ddosing, etc), and it's userbase is consistently cycling throughout the day. Hence, minimal fluctuation of the 300 userbase. How are 10 people to monitor 300 users 24 hours a day? It is not physically possible. Thereby justifying the creation of rule 1.3.2. Oh wait? It's not justified. Hiring more staff resolves this issue. Something as minimal as doubling the current staff team can heavily reduce load times improve responsiveness to issues that just keep popping up over and over again, and the best part? These issues are so common now you have users volunteering to do it for free. and we all know staff are usually paid. Not to mention, those 10 staff I cited? Mick Is inclusive, as are the system admins, lyphiard, and people who do not handle support requests regularly, such as Justis.
Justis Is not a lazy individual. Do I disagree with his ruling on this warning? Oh hell yeah. Can he find a way to twist the wording and logic to technically justify it as it is still a rule? Oh hell yeah.
TLDR:
At the end of the day, you need a larger staff team Mick to avoid senseless and retarded issues such as this one. This has to be the biggest and saddest display of wasted capabilities of this forums since the Vice Incident where his support request was blatantly ignored over the consistent abuse of staff on his reputation. Everyday the forums continue to disappoint userbase. Not in the sense of not fixing issues, but not even responding to them.
Just my 50 cents."
The above logic is what I'm citing for reasoning as to remove or change the parameters in which a user may be issued a warning point for rightfully reporting threads, even in bulk. The main argument to the above is:
-Staff size, (Of which a solution has been offered)
-It "clogging" the reports section with "less important" reports, (As if to judge the severity of a rule when no severity for punishments are in place for anything but doxes, and ban evasion)
Both of which can be solved with a larger staff team and a better report system similar to one originally suggested by the user: Ivain Where you can select the severity or category of a report before making it, to help staff get to "the good shit," first.
Now, tell me I'm wrong.
Thank you,
-Zel
- Type
- Suggestion
- Status
- Implemented
Banned forever. Reason: Scamming (https://builtbybit.com/threads/mistazel-scam-report.267870/)
