If you don't mind me partaking in this discussion: I'm very concerned by Nugget's general outlook on some topics here.
If you don't mind me quoting you, Nuggets, and then deliberating what my concern is. It might be a simple misunderstanding on my part, but the volume and frequency at which these sentiments are presented is what pushed me to voice my observation. I've added a (...) if I took a quote out of the middle of the sentence, but I tried to keep only full quotes, that seem to present your sentiment correctly, even if observed in vacuum. If you think I've somehow misrepresented your own position and concerns, do let me know and I'll correct and acknowledge them. Additionally, the number stated in square brackets (e.g. [1]) is just a way to denote in which post a quote originates from. It helps me a bit to format the quotes, and hopefully showcases the volume and frequency that I claim exist:
Who is talking here?
Before I get into the meat of my observation, I'd like to do a bit of uncovering of the FAF "hierarchy" - not because it is hidden knowledge, but because people often don't (and I can understand them) take extra time to research stuff in-depth. If you are familiar with the FAF's hierarchy (or can't be bothered, but you might be confused as to some parts of the latter text), you can skip to the next title, which would be: "What are rules, Who are the rules for, and When do the rules apply".
The structure of FAF may not be known to many, but we have a project in the works that should make it a bit more easy to understand. However, it is very important that everyone who participates in this discussion (or is just observing it) and other similar that might follow understands it, so I will elaborate on it a bit here, since the project is not that close to completion (which would be my own, personal fault).
The FAF Association is de jure and de facto entity that represents the entire FAF community: PvE players, noobs and pros, contributors, trolls, inventors and bores, habitual rule breakers, yappers and gappers - everyone. Mostly anyone can join it, and try and affect the way FAF is ran for (in their view) the better - assuming they can convince the majority to agree with them. A reminder that the Association is a legal entity.
The FAF Association Board, or as we often abbreviate it, the Board, is the entity that is chosen by the aforementioned Association to actually run things on a daily basis. In theory, the Board is tasked with keeping the services available, administering finances, processing moderation issues, updating the game, organizing tournaments, posting news, deciding on maps for the matchmaker, balancing the game, and much more. If the FAF community had 60 members, the Board could do it. But that's not really achievable with the size of FAF. That is why, in a similar way that the Association tasks the Board to handle things, the Board delegates (most) tasks for the FAF Teams to handle.
Every Team is headed by the Team Lead, who is usually the person with adequate experience and understanding of the topic their Team covers. I won't go into details on all of them, but one of them is also the Moderation Team. They are a group of people that the Board, and by proxy, the Association, and by further proxy, the entirety of FAF community (as a majority rule, ofc) deemed capable of and was tasked with handling the work that they are doing.
Why am I saying this? Because I think it is very important we all understand who's who here. The moderation team wasn't picked by moderation team because they wanted to play moderators. They were (retroactively, and I can dissect this topic further, but I don't think this particular thread is a great place to do it) chosen because the Association decided they were both:
A) a necessary part of the FAF Community
B) capable of executing the work they are executing
I know this is a bit bureaucratic-heavy topic, but I just want to make sure we all understand the "hierarchy". That's why it is the moderation team you will primarily go to for moderation appeals, rule questions, etc. They are the base-line heavy-lifters when it comes to these topics. If you find any of their work unsatisfying, the next in the hierarchy is the Team Lead (currently, that'd be Giebmasse). If you are not satisfied with that person's work, you go to the Board next. If you are not satisfied with how the Board handled your case, you try and sway the Association to your side.
What are rules, Who are the rules for, and When do the rules apply
[1] Why would this be bannable if ANY other person reports this, other than one of the ALIVE players on the team of the offender?
[1] It feels like an overreach of moderation / the rules in general to try to enforce something, which no-one in the game has a problem with it.
[2] By saying you can't ever do that, you are trying to force the rules on people who didn't ask.
[2] Even if you decide not to ban, and just give a warning; you are warning them to not play in a certain way in their games.
[3] Also, I think the enemy team is basically the same as someone not in the game in this category. But, as you clearly see this differently, can you elaborate why you think so?
[5] Basically, I'm saying these rules are irrelevant if nobody in the game has a problem with it (obviously only makes sense for the rules i mentioned). Index is then saying if you play ANY game on FAF (which includes singleplayer), you must follow these rules. As in, you can't even wall-glitch in singleplayer.
[6] However, I would still like to know the reason why the opponent team CAN report this.
[6] I get that noone is (probably) ever going to report a single-player game, but that fact that it is possible is just crazy to me.
[6] I'm sure (or hope) you mean this differently but if not, do you really mean that you just look at the rule on paper and nothing else?
[7] By having the consent of your team, you are not annoying or disrupting your teammates enjoyment of the game. Furthermore, by having the consent of your team, they have clearly decided the game is over, so the enemy can't really argue that the guy stole their enjoyment. While the offender did "steal" the enjoyment of the opponents, its with the consent of his team, so no different from recalling or quitting in their own way.
[8] The fact that something is bannable in games where "no one asked" (as in: a closed community (like my example earlier), a 1v1 between 2 players and so on) is just crazy to me.
[10] Its the enforcement of rules in games where no participant asked them to be enforced
From reading these, especially grouped they way they are above, there's an obvious gross misunderstanding of how rules work. And I'm not talking FAF rules. I'm talking rules, as a general concept. This is a most troublesome misunderstanding/misconception in my opinion - and it could potentially have real-life implications if you don't figure it out, regardless of FAF or any other gaming/leisurely community you might join.
Whatever anyone might say in this discussion on rules is just pointless, unless we establish what rules are, how they are implemented in FAF, and how that affects the way moderation process is carried out.
So what are rules? Rules are a set of explicit regulations and principles that govern conduct and procedures in a particular activity. Did I use Google to formulate this sentence? Yes I did. What is important is that we understand what this sentence means. Its the basis of what follows. Allow me to be so brazen as to break down a couple of parts of the definition which you might not understand the meaning of. I'm not trying to showcase some intellectual superiority here - there are many non-native English speakers around here, and I want to be sure we are all on the same page with this definition, which is loaded with some very "big words". I'll keep borrowing "Google's" definitions just so everyone can verify them.
- explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt - similar words: clear, exact, unambiguous
- govern - conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority - similar words: manage, control
This means that rules should unambiguously define what is or, more often, isn't accepted, as well as unambiguously define the result of breaking them. Notice how nowhere it states who the rules apply to.
In general, rules apply to the group of people that agreed to those rules. That's it. Sometimes they might agree to the rules directly (explicitly), e.g. playing a game with a ball, a group of friends agrees that they will only touch the ball with their legs, or by signing a contract. Many times, however, people agree to the rules implicitly and/or indirectly (by signing a general "agreement" to whatever event or entity they are partaking in). When one signs up to a chess tournament, he agrees to play the game of chess using the rules for chess, and not rules for checkers or tennis. Another example is entering a foreign country, or gaining citizenship - there's intrinsic and presupposed agreement to follow the laws (rules) of that country (the act of requesting citizenship, for example, is your acknowledgment you will follow the rules).
When you create a FAF account - to play games using the FAF client, participate in social interactions in official FAF channels, share your creations (contribute) with the community - you are explicitly accepting the rules set by FAF (or, technically, the Association). There's no individual, group or subgroup that this does not befall. It doesn't matter if it is just a bunch of friends that don't have almost any contact with the community at large, or the most active group in the community or if you are in some "position of power" (e.g. members of Association or Board, Team Leads, etc.). It doesn't even matter how big the group is. Rules are rules. They define what we, the community, find important enough that we went out of our way to create rules about it. Rules should be followed, with no exception, and no loosey-goosey shenanigans.
Now, does this mean that the rules are infallible and indefinite? NO, no no no. We can change the rules, we can add rules, we can remove rules. We can make them more broad and all-encompassing, or we can go into the most minute of details for each and every case and subcase the rules define. However, currently active rules are there to ensure that things happen the way the majority sees it fit, and all should act accordingly. If someone doesn't like the rules, there's three things they can do: try and change them by winning over the majority, break them - masquerading as an attempt to try and showcase tyranny (it would be a tyranny if you could not change them fairly), or, and I'm not saying this to try and scare or drive people away, but only because it's the only option left: leave the community/organization that they do not see as conducive to their desires.
To touch on the "ball game with friends" example I mentioned earlier - one can either try to convince his friends to change the rules, be an ass and break the rules, or stop playing.
One might ask themselves if there's a time when the rules might not apply. The short of it is: no. Rules apply at all times. That is true in both the most totalitarian tyrannies, and in the most just, merciful and forgiving asylums.
What makes this not overbearing in "good and just" systems is that not every single action is under scrutiny, but rather the enforcement of the rules relies on some system of reports. Requiring a report by the community itself is pretty much the loosest enforcement system you can have (other than maybe self-reporting, but that's a pipe dream). Some systems might implement additional methods of detection and enforcement - often reserved for rules that are regarded as more important by the community. E.g., you could have traffic speed cameras in areas of high importance to the community (often schools, and other pedestrian-busy areas) to ensure drivers are on their best behavior. You could easily make this simple system completely overbearing, by having the entire road network be covered by speed cameras, making any kind of deviation from the stipulated immediately punished. You could also make it more forgiving, by introducing margins which allow members to deviate from the prescribed norm (even when detected, e.g. by a camera). Whatever might be decided on, it needs to be in the rules, or it is open to interpretation, and thus misuse which inevitably leads to indignation.
Just because rules apply at all times on all members of the community equally, does not mean that the rules themselves can not stipulate different outcomes for breaking the rules in different ways, or by different people. But again, any such deviations and additions then must be incorporated into the rules. There are plenty of real-world examples of this: a person breaking the speed limit can be punished differently than a different person breaking the same speed limit in the same place by the same amount - e.g. by being a repeat offender, or by doing it in adverse weather conditions. I'm sure we can all think of many other such examples.
Unlike the example with the group of friends in a game with a ball, FAF is not anyone's personal playground that "just happens to also be used by a community". A single individual or a minority (vastly, in the cases you describe, Nuggets), does not get to set what the rules are, who they are applied to and when they are applicable. A "closed community" does not exists as a constituent of FAF. Yes you can have your circle of friends who you often play with, and I'm really happy that you are able to both find such people and enjoy your time with them. From what I've read here, however, what you are asking for is, quite ironically, the very thing you and "the people you talk to" are claiming to be (according to you) concerned about: [a police state].
I hope we can all be now satisfied with this. It is very important, and that's why I gave it my best effort to be as clear as possible. I was not concise, but that was on purpose - this time around, anyhow. If we really want to improve this community, we can not, under any circumstance, question whether rules should be applied or not. They should. But we should feel free to question: "Are the rules we are currently using complementary to the community we would like to have." We can, and should, also question how those rules are enforced. "Is there bias?", "Are we being controlled by a minority?" and "How can we trust the enforcement is by the rules?"
With what moderate amount of communication with the Moderation team I've had, I'd truly like to show you, Nuggets, and everyone, that this is not some kind of an action-movie tyrannic state that needs overthrowing. Moderation is a complex situation. I've had my touches with it - I've been muted unfairly in a misunderstanding before, and my appeal was processed and accepted. I've also been muted quite justly. I might've been lucky. But there are reasons some things are opaque. There are indeed also some things that are opaque that, in my honest opinion, don't need to be. I'm personally all for maximum transparency - but only as much as we can achieve, without compromising the efficiency and purpose of the moderation process. I can confirm that Moderation team is working around the clock to explore which data is safe to publish and bring to light - in addition to the usual: volunteering a lot of personal time and energy on this most thankless job in any community - being just [the police].
What is the criteria for when a game should be moderatable
[6] Yes, the games / replays are watchable via the vault, but imo this should not automatically make them adhere to the rules.
[6] I get that noone is (probably) ever going to report a single-player game, (...)
[8] I'm not saying moderators are actively looking through the replays (I don't know why this was mentioned multiple times now).
As I elaborated above, the amount of scrutiny is what makes a moderation system feel more or less oppressive. In theory, every game (or other action) that happens on this platform is under the scrutiny of rules. The Moderation Team is not, however, setup as a hunting team. And you seem to agree with that. I'm personally glad this is the case. Not only because I do believe that overbearing enforcement is just as bad as no enforcement whatsoever, but also because if it were the case that moderators were actively sifting through everything, people would be getting their bans with a 10 year delay (that's just how much work there is).
As also touched upon above, some rules in FAF are considered more important than others. This affects both how (by who) they can be reported, as well as under how much scrutiny particular actions are. In general, anyone privy to the infraction can report it. E.g. sending inappropriate messages in a public channel means anyone can report it (everyone is privy to public channels). For in-game events, it was decided (not by the moderation team) that anyone participating in the game is considered privy (even though technically, anyone can look at the replay).
Exploits, for example, are considered a very serious issue, and are under more scrutiny. Just to try and bring it closer to all readers why they are treated with more care, consider the following:
In the initial phases of this "big debate", I inadvertently observed a short message which very vaguely described a particular exploit. I've never heard of this exploit before, never seen it discussed or performed. I've just read the 3 words. Three. Number 3. Three words that describe what the exploit does. These three words were enough for me to launch local dev environment game, try the exploit out, and figure it in all of 10 seconds of trying.
I'm obviously not going to use this exploit, or even discuss it, because, despite the fact the original sender (of the 3 words) was of the opinion that that particular exploit is hardly impactful/useful on highly-rated players in FAF; that particular exploit could have tremendous impact on games for players who are rated under say 1.2k global. That'd be a hugely, and I do mean hugely, larger group of people than the author of the 3-word exploit is a part of.
Considering also that, unlike the "neat" little group at he top of the rankings (which I'm not trying to lower - it's an amazing achievement of skill I'm neither willing nor, likely, capable of pursuing), many people in the community would not even recognize that the exploit is happening. Most would probably not notice it at all. Of those that did notice it, most of them would assume it was a weird interaction. Of those that did not think it was a weird interaction, most of them would think it is a bug. Of those that assumed it was a bug, most of them wouldn't go out of their way to report the "bug" they witnessed. And most of the remaining few who assumed it was some oddity and not a bug, would not be aware it was a bannable offence.
Thus, there are many things we need to consider when we decide on the rules. This of course also includes the criteria for reporting (and moderation) actions. But understand that the rule is applicable to every member of the community. Just because a small group within it might not have the issue that the rule is trying to resolve, doesn't mean we should or even can formulate the ruling in a way that satisfies that small group (even if they were the more sensical one) - it needs to be resistant against misinterpretation of everyone in the community.
How should a person/moderator make a ruling:
[6] I'm sure (or hope) you mean this differently but if not, do you really mean that you just look at the rule on paper and nothing else?
[8] However, it just feels like you're taking the easy way out by censoring / banning everything in that direction.
I'm hoping I covered this in the "long" part of this comment. But I do find it concerning enough that I'm willing to touch upon it just once again, briefly. Yes, the rules are to be followed to the letter. Any deviation from that is the exact thing that would allow the moderation team to "rule from the shadows" and "do things of their own accord".
By following rules exactly how they are written, and not allowing any poetic freedom, we ensure a properly functioning system. Again, that doesn't mean we can't change those rules to fit us, the community, better. It also doesn't mean we can't be more transparent with the moderation process. But are you really trying to suggest moderators should have the freedom to interpret the rules however they want? I don't think they should, and I think you'd agree with that.
Anyways. I hope we can have a good, quality discussion on this whole class of topics. I do want to repeat that there are efforts in improving things. And they did start before this recent request to reconsider moderation. I hope that, if you still feel there are faults in the system or the rules, you now at least know where to ask about the particulars, identify faults with them, and how you can move forward to fix them.
Do not presume to avoid the rules. Bend them to your will - albeit as a part of the majority. Otherwise people will see you as yet another tyrant .
