B. for me!

Ok, diplomat, this is not the survey itself. Please only comment on whether or not you think the survey is worded soundly/adequate. The actual survey will be put up with in an hour.

A. I do have to say, you do have to send a reminder after a week. (mostly before the new mods came in)

i just added a D category i think :). Or a remark box.

A will now read:
A. The mods have responded to all of my accusations (with in a week and maybe one reminder) and I think they are doing a fine job.

I think three or four responses that capture most of the sentiments would be adequate.

I think it is sufficient.

A couple more affirmatives and I will post the survey.

Looks good.

@Lando

The only thing that is required is their userID and any relevant gameIDs. We'll take care of the rest. If you want to include more, that's fine.

I held off, but now I want to comment:

I don't think any of you are understanding the difference between what you think is evidence and what we use as evidence. This was Lando's mistake, and whilst I could have been more clear, I didn't really have to be.

When I get back to you with "there's no evidence to suggest..." it means I've looked at every angle, every game, every public message, every known associate, etc etc. I've looked at things you can't see, things you wouldn't understand just by looking at them.

So when you read "there's no evidence..." it doesn't mean link me with another game.
It means whilst the investigation will remain open as all investigations do, there is currently no evidence to act on.

And that statement is a courtesy to you. It is by our discretion on how we comment during reports and accusations. I could just as easily send:
"Dear Member,
Thank you for your email.
Moderator"

But I like to let know a bit more so you can go on and continue the game.
When you make a report, you're telling us where to look, not what to look at.

Ah, Geofram's in a mood...

I think the point is we'd rather be told:

"Dear Member,
Thank you for your email.
Moderator"

Than what we get which is rather dismissive, especially when more evidence has later come to light and the accusations been proven out after all.

It's not about your actions or how you handle the cheats, it's about communication. And in the end, the game of Diplomacy is about communication so we expect more "diplomatic" communicatiopn from our mods, especially as the site is now throughly supported by the membership (look at ll the bronze, silver, and gold coins around) and not just by Kestas and a few donors.

Lando: "Please look at this game"
Me: "There's no evidence to suggest cheating, but thanks."
Lando: "No no, please look at this game too."
Me: "There's no evidence to suggest cheating, but thanks."
Lando "OH NO YOU DIDN'T!"

So there was no evidence at all that suggested cheating, and Lando just hit the lottery by divining it despite lack of all evidence?

You're speaking of two widely different cases.

Gotcha.

@Draug

"especially as the site is now throughly supported by the membership"

lol

Come back when the mods are seeing any of that money and try that one again. : )

I think what's being asked for here is transparency in how the moderators operate. Let me nip that in the bud: it will never happen. Half of the reason why we're so good at checking for cheaters is that you have no idea how we do it.

Beyond this:
- We look into every case.
- We respond in as timely a manner as we can.
- The outcome of every investigation is subjective to the moderator's discretion.

You should just be happy we do what we do and leave it at that.

"I think what's being asked for here is transparency in how the moderators operate."

That's not what I understood people to be asking at all.

"The outcome of every investigation is subjective to the moderator's discretion."

Well, this isn't entirely true. We have a number of guidelines and precedents that we follow.

You know I meant in what each person making a report should expect. Sometimes you just get "thanks" sometimes you get "there's no evidence" other times you might not get anything until the end of the investigation.

No, I didn't know you meant that. I don't think your last bullet point says what you think it says.

But see Geofram, while I can believe that lack of transparency helps you out, I can't really believe that editing your form email message (or small set of form email messages) to something else, unspecific as to the types of evidence looked at, would give anything away at all, which is why I don't really see the relevance of this worry.

@semck

But, I really don't know what you want us to say instead. If we respond with:

"There is not enough evidence at this time to ban them"

it sounds like we think they are guilty and are just waiting for them to mess up again. That's really not the message we try to convey when people make an accusation.

I love how Geofram talks as if he's been THE mod holding up this community for years on end.
Like semck83 said, they don't want to know how the mods look for cheating signs. They do want to know that someone is looking into the particular case they've pointed out along with the evidence they provided.
Moreover, what the hell is that statement "you should just be happy we do what we do and leave it at that?" What kind of authoritarian draconian BS is that?

Well, to be fair, Geo did attend to Lando's cases very, very quickly. I can understand why he'd be annoyed that this is the response he gets in return.

@abge, well, I probably shouldn't have gotten involved at all, because to be honest, I really don't care much. I just responded because, as an outsider (mostly) to the thread, geofram's line of reasoning didn't seem right to me.
As for what I'd rather you do.... I don't know, Draug said something noncommital that seems like it would work. Or how about,

"We have looked into it and are taking no action at this time."

The "at this time" there sounds pretty conclusive actually, because almost every BS form letter has that phrase, lol. So I don't think people would read too much in, but it also doesn't sound like you're blowing somebody off. Or how about,

"Our inquiry yielded no evidence sufficient to draw conclusions of cheating."

Or I don't know. lol. Like I say, I should probably stay out of it.

I don't know; they just don't seem that different to me.

I've been using the same stock phrase for a whole year now and this is the first time anyone has complained.

Regardless, how Geo might feel or how Lando might have reacted, correct me if I am wrong, but the mods are a part of the community, not overlords -benevolent or otherwise. Most of us here want to raise questions or make changes/suggestions that would improve the site and our enjoyment. It's ridiculous to state that we should be grateful that there are mods that do anything at all and to question a mod or a policy is an unconstructive waste of time. That's the kind of elitist attitude that assumes that what you have is perfect and cannot be improved and should not be questioned.