Atomic Systems

It is with some great sadness that I have made the decision (in consultation with the other moderators on the site) to remove the commercial forums from the system on or around December 1st; I am happy to provide a little flexibility in this date to allow the groups in question to set their own forum systems up if this is not possible within the time provided.

There are a number of reasons for this decision.

Confusion, Complexity of Moderation
Decisions are taken in commercial group forums and core moderators are held accountable. Sometimes decisions are made which are counter to what the core moderating team might have done and in any case it's done without consultation with the core moderating team (which was put in place to ensure everyone gets a fair hearing, freedom of speech and every other complaint actually levied against the core moderating team). Core moderators are taken to task for such decisions or for not dealing with them in a timely manner and so forth. Generally, it's just confusing and provides yet more negativity towards the core moderating team.

Mixed Loyalties
I am often personally accused of being far too close to these commercial groups - the fact that many of them are friends of mine (though perhaps not for much longer, we'll see) doesn't seem to enter in to peoples minds, all people can see is red.

One Rule for All
Yet another accusation made against me on a fairly regular basis is that i'm apparently very unfair, providing different rules for different people in different situations - so in this instance, where there are a couple of commercial groups forums I would like to see the back of (not necessarily a negative comment towards the groups themselves I stress) I can't just get rid of them and not all of them without opening the floodgates to yet more stress and bother, none of which I can be bothered with.

Most commercial groups elsewhere run their own forums/site
I am still going to provide links to these groups and recommend people visit their sites, i'm not even remotely considering this some kind of "push" out of the community for them (for one thing, i'm not quite that big headed as to believe I could do that let alone stupid enough to try) - but maybe everything will be simpler if commercial groups stick to their own domains and manage their own sites etc.

It was a free service
There is no contractual obligation to continue, this was a completely free service. I only mention this to remind people. While most of the commercial groups (with a couple of exceptions) have been very positive in their promotion of UKTrainSim I believe that even without the forums we still do a lot for these groups and will continue to do so.

Will the groups remove all their freeware from the site?
It's a distinct possibility, I have not had a single positive email from any of the groups that I have emailed and most have threatened to remove their files from the site in disputes in the past anyway so this might well be the decision that does it. But hey, that's another reason - going back to mixed loyalties, if the forums are on another server and they are not part of these forums then I cannot even slightly be held responsible for discussions / arguments that take place and (hopefully) we are less likely to get drawn in to the thread. That said, there is a distinct possibility that each of the groups will now set their own file library up and pull all their files from UKTS to host them on their own server - that is their right and I won't stop them from doing that, but I would urge them to consider the damage it does the community-at-large.

I still can't understand this?!
It's simple, after things went nuts on the forums the last time things had to radically change and since that time, until recently, things were better on the forums. They have once again degenerated to a complete free-for-all and the good content on the forums are being lost amongst the noise.

Something's gotta change, it's not just commercial forums getting culled, I am re-evaluating all of the forums - though I don't envisage much change I have already pinpointed two that are likely to get the chop.

Moderation is going to change too - I have lost a number of moderators after some petty, personal and downright rude insults that have been flying in our direction - all aimed at people who give up their free time and do their hardest to provide a neutral moderating team for everything, one person might do a lot of the actual leg-work of deleting/locking/replying but in most cases there's been a fair bit of discussion either before or after amongst the rest of the moderating team and we rarely disagree, we all know what we're expecting and how we plan on dealing with things now.

With one highly active moderator gone, and another who by rights should be spending what little spare time he has these days with his family or other personal matters but is instead spending that time helping out more on the forums moderating instead - a situation which can't last for long or else the torrent of abuse will send him away as well - SOMETHING has GOT to change.

I have not yet decided on exactly how I want to see our approach to moderation change but I think I can safely say it's going to be much more rapid, decisive and err on the side of the wellbeing of the forums rather than constantly trying to balance everything. Moderators will definitely be given the ability to ban accounts on their own rather than me being the only one able to do that.

I will be sorry to see the commercial forums go.

Matt.

You probably don't want a big discussion on this, but I'll add my two penn'orth anyway.

On the loss of the commercial forums, I agree it is sad, but (and despite being associated with one of the commercial outfits) I do agree with the decision. Given what happened recently with another commercial outfit (which is as far as I'll go on that) it's better I think for you to be seen to be completely independant. However, I disagree with the commercial outfits who want to remove their freeware offerings from here in some sort of protest and would ask them what they hope to achieve with this. All they are doing is looking petty and spiting themselves - after all, if freeware uploads for their products are still welcome on UKTS, why not take advantage of the situation where their route is getting added exposure on the site by dint of their product being needed to run the add-on? In any case, I would have thought not having a forum is a blessing not something to protest at given the standards of postings of late.

On the wider changes and moderation again I can see the need for the changes, although I would suggest that the moderator banning option be perhaps for 24hrs to cool off, and to allow consultation with other moderators, as full banning by an individual moderator is possibly a step too far. I would also strongly urge a couple of other things - written rules of engagement, which could be sent to each moderator and posted as a locked sticky at the head of each forum that will remain, to ensure that there is absolute commonality of approach (which will be essential for moderation if bans can be handed out by individual moderators), and also, and I'm using my ex-moderator's hat here, seeing if some sort of "rota" can't be set up to help moderators and save them having to spend too much time policing the forums? Of course any such rota couldn't be set in tablets of stone, but if people are regularly on line at certain times but not others, they could agree that they will patrol during those hours, and hopefully there would be a spread of people who could provide cover throughout the day without others feeling the obligation to log in just in case. It might help as well if in the Moderator's Arms forum if there was some sort of "logged in now" board showing moderator status to other mods and all the moderators went on hidden status (if they haven't already), again so that anyone who has family commitments can at least plan their involvement in moderation a bit more.

I think I can support Matt with this decision. You can't exclude discussion of one commercial group without excluding all others. Part of the issue stems I think from the fact that as a group/hobby we gather in a fairly small circle and many forum contributors and freeware providers have also been involved with commercial content creation (some like myself more than one group, first 3DTS now BA). It can be a very fine line between commenting as an individual on a product and whether that comment (even wrongly) is interpreted as representing the views of another commercial group - or even a deliberate attempt to spike sales. My policy now is to keep schtum, certainly so far as negative criticism is concerned - at least where content for the UK scene is being discussed. However there seems little doubt that some commercial groups have been shall we say over-sensitive to feedback about their products. I appreciate Matt's concerns about allegations of slander but when PC Gamer slap something down with a 40% score then a couple of months later a reader's review affirms that score, they don't give a toss what the developer thinks. If you put something on sale then you must expect criticism as well as praise. Moving to a situation where the only medium to discuss a product is the developer's own board which may be heavily moderated to remove adverse comments, removes the possibility of getting a balanced debate.

Most other discussion boards, software or otherwise, the people discussing the programme or add-ons are far, far removed from those actually creating them.

My only caveat, which ties in with the concerns about moderation, is the policing of this. When Barney and I banned discussion of BVE on the Crotrainz forum - to discourage the small juvenile element using the programme to stir up trouble - in a very short while it killed the boards. People simply felt they had to go elsewhere (here or Train-sim.com) when they felt their right to open and free discussion was being compromised.

I would suggest that you create a simple "Guide to moderation" with a list such as below :-

"If the thread has turned into a flamewar - LOCK
If the thread is reposted by one of the persons flaming - LOCK & TAKE ACTION"

et cetera, so that what happens does not depend on the particular moderator, there is a set-in-stone approach which is consistant.

Mark makes some good points about moderator guidelines, and Tom, I agree. In fact while it's not written in stone the 'code of conduct' by which the Mods team works is well known to all the Mods and works extremely well. As a part of the shake up 1/12 represents there are discussions on how the Mods work going on as well, so yes, I think there will be some reworking of our practices.

Fully accept your reasons for your decision Matt, however feel that it is a real shame and a shame that it was ruined by a few, but thats all I will, or need to, say on this.

My real concern is for the future wellbeing of UKTS; IMO the amount if freeware uploaded in recent months has nose-dived and if new forums pop up, as they undoubtedly will (indeed, probably are as we speak) then will subscribers decamp?

Perhaps there needs to be clear support from the commercial guys to upload enough to UKTS to keep us interested? eg MT's Cromptons or EB's CIG reskins.... The whole community needs to work together here for the common good and by maintaining a strong, independent UKTS will have a platform for free speech. Just a thought.

Hi

Could it be possible (if the groups concrened don't mind), that rather than get rid of them, they reamain but with only one post, with a link to the forum in question. This would help avoid the hundreds of posts from people who look here infrequently wondering where they are, and would also help retain a sense of community.

Chris

Possible clicking on the forum would redirect you to their site?

Above seems a good idea. Maybe just a link to a links page with the Commercial Groups' Websites. I support the shake-up, but I think it is a shame, as it is another step closer to communities splitting. That is one thing I do not like, having to sign up to about 5-6 different boards, more passwords, when it *could* all just be in one.

As for the Mod's shake-up, it seems to be doing okay. You have a good team of Moderators, although it might be a time to think who actually visit's the site daily, as I see no point in a Moderator that visit's only once a week/month.
Peter

Maybe I'm being the Devil's Advocate here, but I'm not sure that banning all over the actions of some is necessarily in the best interests of the site, the members, or the commercial concerns. I can't accept Vern's view that you can't ban one without banning all. Of course you can; you just have to be sure that it's justified.
To bring it down to a more individual level, if A.N.Other gets stroppy on the forums, he's warned, suspended, and eventually banned - but we don't ban everyone just because one member is less than civil.

We know there has been some friction with one company, with threats (idle or serious, it matters not) of legal action, and the barring of discussion of the company and their products was a logical step (I'd like to have seen ALL discussion of the company's material, including freeware, barred, and referred to the company's site, but that's another matter).

I don't much frequent the Commercial forums here, mainly because there have been none, so far, of their products I've felt sufficiently enthused about to purchase, so I don't know if there's been any arguments on the others; on the few times I have visited a couple of them, things seemed civil enough. If my experience is typical, do the other companies deserve to be tarred with the same brush? Have they all threatened us with legal action? Have they threatened us with withdrawal of their products? Have they done anything else to justify this action on an individual basis?

Regarding Moderation, I think I've already said my piece in other forums. Overall, the Moderators do a pretty good job; on occasion I feel they are a little quick to act, on occasion they're a little slow. That's life; no-one's perfect.
I am, though, a little concerned about the authority to ban member accounts. There must be safeguards; there must be a fairly rigid procedure to be followed, and there must be some level of appeal. Summary justice is fine in the right place, but it's not perfect. By all mean allow Moderators to suspend, but banning accounts? That may prove to be a tad drastic. We must be able to rectify mistakes and hasty actions.

I am in total agreement with Matt's decisions on this topic. This forum needs to be turned around, and I think the mods should be given more of an ability to do so. I have said before many times, I will never publically criticise the moderation on these forums, they do a wonderful job of it, and I believe, for the most part, they are still part of the community while doing so. I'm also quite upset at the loss of John, he was a good moderator, and a good bloke. Oh, and also, I find it quite sad that Matt has to deal with this forum from the other side of the world.

So in the short term, are you saying that you are getting rid of the UKTS forums?

No. Read Matt's post again carefully.

So they will be taken down for a time until things can get to the normal way it was when the forums first started ( I bet my constant chatter has caused this )

Read the post properly. He says he might be getting rid of some of the forums (possibly two) and rethinking the site moderation

Cheers