The Problems With The Current Moderation System

not gonna chime in the most here just to stay relatively bipartisan but
A) Yeah, mod team absolutely needs restructuring at the top end to prevent all three things listed; regardless of me being on the opposition of OP and whatever my beliefs of what happened are, it's clear that the fact there's even this much confusion about it is a huge issue. Clarity and effective communication is a necessity.
B) With this in mind, I do think it feels incredibly rough to prevent mods from playing or experiencing ANY part of the game. Be it just politics or guilds overall, it's critical to remember that yeah they are mods and they have a job to do, but at the end of the day they're also volunteers who do their job because they love playing the game and experiencing all that it can offer. Taking that away from them is one of the last things I would want to do as it could consequently take away their motivation to stick around and do the work that they do.

 

I do agree, but there's much more to the game then guilds & guild politics, most mods aren't interested in it and so don't participate, why do we need to have an exception for like, 5 or 6 moderators who're heavily involved? We don't have to exclude them from the whole game, but mods NEED to be unbiast otherwise this happens. I know guilds aren't the only thing that can cause this, but its the one i'm personally most familiar with. And also, i'm willing to believe this could also help bring more moderators to wynn, i know a lot of people who would apply if it weren't for how fundamentally corrupt the system is right now & not wanting to associate with that.

 

By not being in a guild you don't have to let go of all your friends. You are simply not part of any guild, that way you are not involved in guild politics = the amount of bias is greatly reduced on average.

Excuse me if I sound rude, that's not my intention, but your answer to this thread sounded a little like this: "I don't know what are you complaining about, mods are good, there is no problem with the moderation team. We won't implement changes, because we are the best already."

 

mod go brr

 

I'm just gonna slide this here:

 

________________________________

i don't really wanna get into details here but yes players do get banned for using macros to spam gu attack. However it was never proven that that actually happened. I'm not saying there was biased bans or that there were not but the evidence was simply not enough.

 

Bans were not based entirely on what players reported and sent in. Just because moderators do not disclose their evidence and findings doesn't mean that there isn't any.


If you are not violating Wynncraft's rules, you have nothing to worry about.

________________________________

Moderators are players and should most definitely have the right to participate in guilds. Guilds themselves are for the purpose of community, war is just a feature. Being a feature in Wynncraft, moderators should also be able to partake in that to if they wish.

I will quote:
"To those that are making the argument of targeted moderation... e.g. people on one side of the war are being watched more closely or by more mods than the other side

maybe don't break the rules...?"

I think its really unfair to make such a proposal. It additionally takes away from what the primary function of guilds are.

 

I never acused anyone of being biased however the way that he speaks is wrong. If you break the rules on both sides you should be banned the statement "just don't break the rukes" is not fully correct. Also i believe chat macros were allowed as in to type to people. How can you tell if it was or was not a chat macro? And even if it's bannable we go back to the problem of one mods will ban you for it and some won't so it's just a whole mess.

 

I disagree. Moderators are moderating players, thus in some way they are above them. They are not regular players. And "with great power comes great responsibility" as well as some necessary sacrifices. And as I stated before, if WynnCraft wants to have a professional moderation team, they will remove bias. But maybe being professional is not their goal as it seems...

 

With such a request you seem to see all moderators who participate in guilds as inherently biased people who would act unfairly in their position as to give their guild an advantage. That is not fair to assume of them, especially given the fact they have already addressed the incidents that much of these claims are based off.

Everyone is biased, and that is the truth. What your assuming however is far beyond bias, and would extend past guilds themselves. The only way a moderator could be unbiased is if they didn't play Wynncraft at all and had zero association with the community...

Bias is already easily combatted by simply having multiple moderators of different backgrounds on the server review a case. That is how you target bias in any given situation.

 

Bias is an important issue, just because you're not effected by bias does NOT mean it doesn't happen. You can take as many similar measures to this to prevent bias, but it simply wont fix anything unless you try to remove things that cause these biases, guilds being one of these ways that bias is caused. Regardless of taking moderators out of guilds entirely, i for one don't believe moderators should be involved in guild politics the way many of them currently are, specifically associating with alliances & the like.

And there's also the issue of moderators refusing to speak to & not liking people due to previous guild drama, which is an issue.

Besides, if you're going to moderate for a server, with power comes responsibility. You need to be willing to give up certain things to moderate, and if you're unwilling to do that then maybe you shouldn't be in that position of power because you're clearly not responsible enough for it.

 

I could not have said this better.

It really isn't hard to verify use of illegal macros. Chat macros, are allowed, but only one output for every input as with macro usage on the server, which again they can authenticate. That said, they can easily distinguish between different uses of macros and if they are in accordance with the rules. I don't know how lack of evidence is still suggested as a problem in this case, it is not remotely hard to find proof of misuse.

This is also the third thread on the topic, and it has been addressed every time and on discord. Just because moderators do not disclose their findings does not mean it doesn't exist, and I trust moderators on their decision in this given how easy it is to verify misuse of macros.

 

I'm just gonna say that the validity of the bans that were discussed in the thread isn't necessarily a key issue, its a key issue that whether or not they were valid bans is still a topic, besides, I can name other examples & so can you, so don't act like these bans were the be all and end all of mod bias lmao

 

Why are we even talking about 1 case in a thread with multiple examples as a way of saying there is no bias? idk about you but the one about the dude getting banned for something a mod told him was ok was 100% fucked & looks bias

 

Bias = intentionally helping/damaging one party based on your thoughts to help another party you are affiliated with


E.g. 1 player is stuck and uses /class to get out. A moderator sees them and says "it is ok, they are just getting unstuck, they are not really exploiting it". Then another moderator sees them and ban them because "They are using a glitch to move inside wall"
Os any party biased? No, because there is no 3rd party that has interest on the result. One is just more strict than the other.

 

Lets make a thread about the guy that got banned for nothing and try to get him unbanned

make a poll i wil vote

 

which one we talking bout because there's a lot