MODs Vote & Evaluation.
Comments
-
I'm curious..
Take the fictional moderator Abe who hasn't been active for a few weeks, enough to make him pretty much unknown to a majority of active forum users today.
He won't get many disapproval votes, or he will get a lot of approval votes, because he haven't had time to grind someones gears.
Take someone like me up against Abe, let's say I'm a friendly guy - just active. Removing bad posts, editing insults, adding infractions.
Obviously I'd get the more disapproval votes, or less approval votes, even if I wouldn't be a bad person, I had just done what I'm paid to do and it bothers people.
How would this scenario be fair, to you?
It's pretty obvious who the more effective moderator is, but by doing the job you're automatically alienating certain people who disapprove of the rules and are forced to comply with them.
For a second, I thought you were talking about me! lol
-
I'm curious..
Take the fictional moderator Abe who hasn't been active for a few weeks, enough to make him pretty much unknown to a majority of active forum users today.
He won't get many disapproval votes, or he will get a lot of approval votes, because he haven't had time to grind someones gears.
Take someone like me up against Abe, let's say I'm a friendly guy - just active. Removing bad posts, editing insults, adding infractions.
Obviously I'd get the more disapproval votes, or less approval votes, even if I wouldn't be a bad person, I had just done what I'm paid to do and it bothers people.
How would this scenario be fair, to you?
It's pretty obvious who the more effective moderator is, but by doing the job you're automatically alienating certain people who disapprove of the rules and are forced to comply with them.
Pretty much just this... I didn't become a mod to become a friend to everyone... I came to help out... some of that includes the jobs you guys will never know about, getting rid of stuff before you see it etc. I made a lot of enemies when I was active, but that meant I was doing something right in my eyes. I always got checked by the other guys to see I hadn't gone too far, and thats how they work best, as a team, they even each other out.
I made a few mistakes, and I publicly apologised for them at the time. But I still stand by pretty much everything I ever did.
Just my $2. -
' wrote:America;4141573']I would like to open the Idea of Voting to MODs evaluation. Because I am pretty sure if Z8 did this, we will be singing farewell to some MODs here.
I don't agree with this for one major reason. The sheep mentality. "One leads, twenty follow."
I understand and agree that voices and opinions should be heard. However, having the masses vote and discuss on a Moderator's performance can lead to a faulty conclusion of that particular Moderator.
What is to stop one person from going and getting all of his in-game friends to come on the forums to post that this Moderator is a piece of crap, just because he deleted your post or infracted you? This idea is too open to suggestion and manipulation.
---- My opinion on being friendly as a Moderator ----
I believe this is open to interpretation. A Moderator does not have to be friendly, so long as they are professional in their responses. They can choose to be friendly in order to appear more welcoming to the community, but this is certainly not a requirement. We are not here to be friends with people, although we can choose to be.
Our job, at its root, is not to be your friend. It's to be a Moderator. Lines can get blurry where we may begin to allow rules to be bent/broken based on who is bending/breaking the rules. If a certain Moderator is really good friends with this person, he may or may not enforce the rules/CoC as he would if they weren't friends. Now we're traveling into the territory of not maintaining a non-biased form of moderation and that's where the line must be drawn.
I mostly moderate the competitive section and I do agree that sometimes threads can be left open (if properly moderated) longer than simply just closing it because they don't want to deal with it. I leave threads open to let people vent and argue amongst each other, so long that it is within reason. People should be able to voice their opinions (again, within reason). -
' wrote:Sake;4141993']The main role of moderators, as bad as it sounds, is to close threads, delete posts and to hand out bans and infractions. That being said it really would be nice if we saw more posts from them, but them keeping quiet doesn't mean they don't read your posts.
They are using their free time to attend to these duties, so whether they choose to answer or not is entirely up to them.
I understand your frustration, but do you expect them writing one-word replies like 'Seen.', 'Recorded.', 'Noticed.'? Because more shouldn't be required.
This is something that should be considered when the Mods are on "active duty". Is there/ Should there be a list of topics that concern forum management/Mods and which the Mods should be required to give their thoughts on? This would add "spokesperson" to their list of duties, and that in itself presents addition questions like "Do spokespeople get paid like their counterparts in everyday life? Who's opinions are they there to represent?".It's pretty obvious who the more effective moderator is, but by doing the job you're automatically alienating certain people who disapprove of the rules and are forced to comply with them.
Quite the paradox, and that right there is enough reason to not hold open voting. If anything, there would have to be limitations on who can vote, like in any civilized election.[MOD]NattNatt wrote: »Pretty much just this... I didn't become a mod to become a friend to everyone... I came to help out... some of that includes the jobs you guys will never know about, getting rid of stuff before you see it etc. I made a lot of enemies when I was active, but that meant I was doing something right in my eyes. I always got checked by the other guys to see I hadn't gone too far, and thats how they work best, as a team, they even each other out.[MOD]Polleus wrote: »"One leads, twenty follow."
What is to stop one person from going and getting all of his in-game friends to come on the forums to post that this Moderator is a piece of crap, just because he deleted your post or infracted you? This idea is too open to suggestion and manipulation.
We are not here to be friends with people, although we can choose to be. Lines can get blurry where we may begin to allow rules to be bent/broken based on who is bending/breaking the rules.
I mostly moderate the competitive section and I do agree that sometimes threads can be left open (if properly moderated) longer than simply just closing it because they don't want to deal with it. I leave threads open to let people vent and argue amongst each other, so long that it is within reason. People should be able to voice their opinions (again, within reason).
Natt, Polleus, and dot- I agree with what you all say. My question then is this. Are the moderators considered a part of the CF forum community? If so, where is the line between being "active- duty Mods" and "members of the community"? Is there already a line, and if not, who sets it? Should it even be set? -
[MOD]Polleus wrote: »Our job, at its root, is not to be your friend.
Neither to be my enemy.
In my case,am talking about someone specifically,if he's professional in his responses,no one will ever think about him as a piece of crap.But sadly he's not when he closes a thread ,he's not closing it decently like many other mods do,he insures that everyone in that thread gets upset which will lead to hating as long as he's doing it repeatedly.
Small story,
The latest back to school event,lots of people didn't receive their ribbons
and there was a major issue.So naturally those ppl who effected by this issue came to the forum to complain after they received the famous support's pot reply.
And here where everything started,that person am talking about insured to close every thread&ended every conversation related to that issue as if it was a challenge for him and his reason was that everything is working fine and he did even called us a liars who lie to get the event reward (ribbon).
Which MODERATOR is talking like this?
This is no way close to be professional response
Few days after,an announcement posted by one of the game managers said that they did a mistake, and all the people who got effected by the issue will receive their rewards. Which means that everything wasn't fine and we were not "lie'ing"
In my opinion,such a person can't be treated like all the other respected moderators,he can't even post a professional response like the other MODs did in this thread.
By the end of the story,his infractions to me filled up my main account and leaded to the perm ban and now every time i post my honest opinion i receive an immediate ban.
On the eyes of the other MODs i am that one who mentioned in MOD VU's post,the one who creates 50 account to burn the mod i don't like while am not,but a MOD insured that i look like that by banning me immediately so i go on another account and the other moderators think about me as the bad guy.
I'm so oppressed and no body can help me,no body tried to hear my side of the story.
Keep doing what are you doing Fizzeq~Keep shutting up the community. -
text
I suppose we could be more clear, but hard moderation is often the best route when theres a certain kind of issue.
We be told that it's not an issue at all, sometimes we're told it's not an issue but it is, often there is already a thread open and one thread is more helpful than 10, sometimes we know a GM is about to make a thing about it.
This to say that we usually know what we're doing, but aren't always the best at communicating it.
Spamming the same thing over and over and being mad when you get banned seems excessive though, we still have rules even if the issue is particularly annoying for you.
Obviously it was solved, solved without the repetitions being helpful at all, so maybe.. patience. -
often there is already a thread open and one thread is more helpful than 10.
Spamming the same thing over and over and being mad when you get banned seems excessive though
Thanks for the tip,i wasn't clear enough.
I didn't post all the threads by myself ,i actually posted one only.
All the players who were effected came to the forum and they didn't find any single thread talking about their issue because every thread was blindly closed.And i kept saying in every thread "Please MR fizzeq keep one thread alive and don't close them all"
So naturally those players who couldn't find any thread related to the discussion which they were seeking for,they created a new one and that's what leaded to the multiple threads regarding the same topic because there wasn't any thread remained open to discuss it.
I do remember these few days perfectly well,when every thing started between me and him,when he considered me as his true one enemy. -
Natt, Polleus, and dot- I agree with what you all say. My question then is this. Are the moderators considered a part of the CF forum community? If so, where is the line between being "active- duty Mods" and "members of the community"? Is there already a line, and if not, who sets it? Should it even be set?
I'd say so for definite yes. We all started out as regular forumers, and got selected to help out. We're not like the GM's that do this as part of their job, we got invited, and we accepted. I don't think there has to be a line? I'm on a LoA currently since I am in a place where I am unable to be active much, I get on the forums maybe 1/2 hours a week currently, with no possibility of playing CF. But when I was active I still contributed to threads, still had the same discussions, still had fun and carried on being an active member of the community, but I was able to help out, calm things down and get rid of things that didn't need to be seen instead of sending the links to moderators as I had been doing previously. -
' wrote:America;4141573']Through the years of my experience in the dull forums of CF, I have noticed that there are always those two sides, the community and the "Staff".
Rarely were ever on the same page.
Why you guys see us as an out-group is a wonder to me, honestly. Nothing changed for me when I became a moderator. Same friends, still no enemies. I provide a clear and concise reason for every action. I feel like you might think that we are never "on the same page" because negative threads and feedback tend to stand out more to you and others due to confirmation bias.Usually you find MODs on your topic trying hard to oppose your opinion whatever it is. That if your topic even remained open for a while.
So former regular users (being us MODs) had no trouble posting opposing opinions that actually facilitate discussion, but once we become MODs, posting an opposing opinion of our own becomes a strike against us? Our status as moderators does not restrict us from our opinions. This is another confirmation bias.
I will agree that moderating someone's opinion just because a MOD may not agree with it, even though it's still within forum rules and CoC, is power abuse, however that is not what you specify above.Bottom line without much philosophy is that there are certain MODs that I think the community are getting bothered with.
May I be the first to raise his hand and announce my frustration.
I would like to open the Idea of Voting to MODs evaluation. Because I am pretty sure if Z8 did this, we will be singing farewell to some MODs here.
I pretty sure it's within our rights to do this, and if the community wants some change, let it start from here. Our voices needs to be heard not closed, opposed and banned.
Mods are not elected by the community and their demotion will not be decided by the community. That being said, we already have a system in place for users who are unhappy with moderator conduct. Simply 1. Go to the moderator who took action, if that didn't work, 2. Go to another moderator. We get onto each other and discuss each others actions with users a lot in terms of moderation. I also don't think you realize how active the GMs are on these forums. Just because they don't post doesn't mean they're not here, and they see every single bit of moderation we do, and they do come to us about it when they have a problem. 3rd and finally, contact a GM either through support tickets or PM on the forums. If the GMs look into it and find that the MOD is just in their decisions, then case closed. That is the open door policy we have. We do not restrict your ability to impact who governs these forums.Never have I seen a negative thing by [MOD]Andrew or has he ever closed someone's thread other than trolls. As for the others, without pointing 2 special ones, you better take off your arrogance and acting like everyone is beneath you, or else you don't deserve your MOD spot.
Again, our attitude has little to do with our moderation. I don't think you realize that moderating can get to be a pain. It's not fun, we don't do this for fun. If our attitudes happen to get out of line the GMs snap you back into shape pretty quickly, and trust me, that's a fact. However, simple sarcasm or not being friendly does not equate to arrogance and improper conduct. Maybe we can do a better job about being more clear in our actions.' wrote:America;4141590']My basic Idea was getting the people gathered on this first, and then we can determine the method of vote.
With that being said, as a method; Each MOD can be voted by the community, ones with negative and low votes gets demoted.
Conformity would have way too much a part in such a free democratic vote. Too many people would just go with whatever everyone else is doing without bothering to educate themselves on the issue(s) at hand or without caring about the impact their votes could create.' wrote:America;4141605']
My problem isn't basically the opposite opinion, in fact, I learn from discussions\arguments and the opposite opinion is always important, yet I criticize the method and the arrogance.
You clearly complained about MODs having opposing opinions of others in your original post, and here you say you learn from it, yet you still call it arrogant to have an opposing opinion? Choose a side.It should be Implemented since we are the ones dealing with them ( The bad MODs with Horns), voting rights can be given to certain post counts accounts and with limited IP restrictions.
You are not the only ones who are affected by bad moderation. It affects the rest of the MODs profoundly as well. A stigma on one MOD makes it easier to overgeneralize it to the rest of us. None of you realize what goes on behind the scenes. We get onto each other when bad moderation goes down. Hell, we get in intense arguments over it. Just as you have views on how the community should be treated, so do the rest of us. WE ARE PART OF THIS COMMUNITY. We have literally had to sit down in meetings and sort issues out and almost have therapy sessions over bad moderation. It poses a massive internal struggle for the MOD group to have a MOD who is not moderating as he/she should.
I know Mods aren't Gods, yet some act like they are. Also complaining to a staff member won't do anything. They can't be the judge and the opposition as well.
I beg to differ. We do a great number of discussions in terms of each other's moderation when it needs to be called to attention.My message is ultimately getting our voices heard and seeing REAL changes, not words of consolation.
Again, we aren't shutting out your voices. We have a policy that I described earlier, that works very well (take it from someone who's had it affect him). Just because you're told ultimately that your case won't stand doesn't mean we're shutting you out, it means that we found the moderation appropriate. This is another confirmation bias.' wrote:America;4141621']How about you be more friendly other than being a ... an unfriendly person.
This is a huge red herring. We aren't here to be your friends. A lot of people on these forums aren't friends with you, and a lot aren't with me, the same goes for every user on this damn forum, man. I, and the other MODs, are here to make sure that all threads and posts conform to the forum rules, ToS, CoC, etc. And yes, we do have room for interpretation in our moderation, which is often disputed by other users, but again, it's always resolved if it's found unjust.Do I look like a person that talks like this? or have I ever addressed an issue with a style of "oh hells yeah bro this is so fking bad go die z8" ?
Never have I claimed such request from you, all I asked for was to ease down and not act like everything that's happening is perfect.
You really over-interpreted this. dot here was describing a common issue that we have to moderate among posts that results in backlash almost every time. He was not directing that towards you, he was using the scenario as an example.
Yes, you can, through the policy that, again, we already have. It has been done before, can be done again, and will be done again through the policy that I have reiterated.[/quote]We shall see about that, If players managed to change game graphics then heck yeah we can change the staff if we wanted to.I enjoyed reading your reply. and tbh dot, I liked you .. even though you are c0cky, You're intelligent and sharp, yet you are not kind nor modest. And sometimes you totally p1ss me off.
You can't use the fact that he ****es you off as a strike against him in this debate. That's a personal bias. Hell, the whole vote would be composed of personal bias and conformity.' wrote:America;4141681']Being professional doesn't conflict being friendly. An example Mod Andrew.
And Just a simple proof of what I am talking about.
I met you a while ago on a public E.E S&D Game, Hell I asked to add you, and your answer was " I will think about it "
Who answers like that ?
I've never seen dot play on his actual moderator account. Ever. Don't know how you knew it was him unless he said something. But, again, we aren't here to be your friends. If Andrew chooses to then that's his decision, but say if Andrew's friendliness inhibited him from doing his job as a moderator, then that'd be a problem. Friendliness as a moderator hurts our ability to be completely clear. If we are really cool and overly chill and friendly with a user, and they happen to violate a rule that we as MODs act on, it tends to create a lot of confusion with the user.As to how good of a job they do in terms of editing posts, again, I'm not sure of exactly how serious the code of conduct is supposed to followed (is it the equivalent of a speed limit or a federal law?) and I also don't know how much is open to interpretation by the Mods. Could one of you nice people take some time to explain that to me a bit better?
The rules are pretty much law for us. That being said, many of us are lenient and give the users some wiggle room. However, we also have some wiggle room with rule interpretation, but we usually consult other moderators and/or GMs before acting on our interpretations to clear the action before it could possibly start drama. The last thing we want to do is upset users, but unfortunately when you tell people they can't do the things they want they tend to respond negatively.As to a community vote, I have mixed feelings about how effective something like this would be. As an American, I feel bound to uphold the democratic principles that shaped my country. That being said, anyone who really believes in the effectiveness of democracy is sadly misconstrued. (just my opinion)
Heres why I think this "town hall" decision making process won't work-
#1 The average community member is still a child, or a young adult. Kids, teens, and young adults are definitely not the wisest group of people out there.
Yup. The average age of forumers here is well below 20, and the frontal lobe (the part of the brain that controls logical and thought out decision-making) doesn't finish developing in humans until the age of 25. This has a lot to do with teenagers making poor choices and the common "teenage phase", etc. This is why crime rates drop in age groups 25 and older.#2 The average community member is unaware of the full responsibilities of a Mod, and until they are, I don't see why they should decide who is doing a good job or not (there are exceptions to this America, I'm just estimating at overall numbers)
The GMs do a wonderful job of keeping us in line and booting us when we don't respond accordingly.' wrote:Sake;4141993']The main role of moderators, as bad as it sounds, is to close threads, delete posts and to hand out bans and infractions. That being said it really would be nice if we saw more posts from them, but them keeping quiet doesn't mean they don't read your posts.
They are using their free time to attend to these duties, so whether they choose to answer or not is entirely up to them.
I understand your frustration, but do you expect them writing one-word replies like 'Seen.', 'Recorded.', 'Noticed.'? Because more shouldn't be required.
Our role is to moderate, and those are the duties incorporated in moderation, to be used only when appropriate. However you make a valid point. One of the negative aspects about being a MOD is that even when just posting on a topic to facilitate discussion, someone will find something you said and try to blow it into some catastrophic exaggeration to start an argument with. That's one reason why a lot of us don't post a lot.' wrote:America;4142006']For me, I am sick and tired of the unlimited forum powers given to certain Mods without proper supervision.
Actually, if you were as informed as you think you seem to be, you'd know that every MOD undergoes a period of probation right at the beginning of their induction and are not given full powers until the GMs AND other MODs see he/she is fit to use them. And again, if powers are being abused, we do take action. Bad moderation affects ALL OF US.You give someone some authority and they think they can do whatever they want. Happens in everything around us.
And the same would happen to the regular users if we gave them the power to collectively demote whoever they wanted. In-group favoritism plays a huge role in persuasion. The mere opposition in mindsets, personality, or opinion of an out-group individual to an in-group individual will sway other in-group individuals to collectively oppose the out-group individual, regardless whether they listened to the argument or not. On top of the in-group favoritism, conformity of other non-involved out-group users would hop on the band wagon of the in-group just to go with the flow.The GMs have to give us the chance to vote for each current individual MOD and the one who's vote is down, goes down!
[/SIZE]
No they don't. They decided who gets to be a MOD, and they'll decide who doesn't. Not you. Not anyone else, not even other MODs. Regular users and other MODs have a say in a moderator's poor conduct or choices or reasons to be let go as a MOD, but the final decision is up to the GMs and it always will be.' wrote:Sake;4142014']Also worth to mention that usually people who have problems with moderators are those who don't follow the rules of the forum. They break the rules, get infracted/banned then they make new accounts just to do the same all over again.
The sad fact of this is that people use this method as a means to getting their other account unbanned and getting the MOD in trouble, yet 99% of the time it backfires and puts the user worse off.
Again, in-group favoritism and conformity would affect it too much.' wrote:America;4142021']Then we get to choose specific MODs whom we feel damaged by, then the elections start.
For more illustration; You ask the community first to point out the most MODs they want to criticize, and if found much gathering on him, he faces the vote.[MOD]NattNatt wrote: »Pretty much just this... I didn't become a mod to become a friend to everyone... I came to help out... some of that includes the jobs you guys will never know about, getting rid of stuff before you see it etc. I made a lot of enemies when I was active, but that meant I was doing something right in my eyes. I always got checked by the other guys to see I hadn't gone too far, and thats how they work best, as a team, they even each other out.
I made a few mistakes, and I publicly apologised for them at the time. But I still stand by pretty much everything I ever did.
Just my $2.
*CUP CHECK* -
Wow, you really took your time writing this. Even reading it took me around 10 minutes.[MOD]Seashore wrote: »If Andrew chooses to then that's his decision, but say if Andrew's friendliness inhibited him from doing his job as a moderator, then that'd be a problem. Friendliness as a moderator hurts our ability to be completely clear. If we are really cool and overly chill and friendly with a user, and they happen to violate a rule that we as MODs act on, it tends to create a lot of confusion with the user.
This is so spot on. While being a moderator is hard to even compare to being a lieutenant of a clan, I had to face this problem many times before with some of our members. -
[MOD]Seashore wrote: »The rules are pretty much law for us. That being said, many of us are lenient and give the users some wiggle room. However, we also have some wiggle room with rule interpretation, but we usually consult other moderators and/or GMs before acting on our interpretations to clear the action before it could possibly start drama. The last thing we want to do is upset users, but unfortunately when you tell people they can't do the things they want they tend to respond negatively.
Yup. The average age of forumers here is well below 20, and the frontal lobe (the part of the brain that controls logical and thought out decision-making) doesn't finish developing in humans until the age of 25. This has a lot to do with teenagers making poor choices and the common "teenage phase", etc. This is why crime rates drop in age groups 25 and older.
The GMs do a wonderful job of keeping us in line and booting us when we don't respond accordingly.
*CUP CHECK*
Thanks for clarifying- the Mod/GM hierarchy had been a bit unclear for me.[MOD]NattNatt wrote: »I'd say so for definite yes. We all started out as regular forumers, and got selected to help out. We're not like the GM's that do this as part of their job, we got invited, and we accepted. I don't think there has to be a line? I'm on a LoA currently since I am in a place where I am unable to be active much, I get on the forums maybe 1/2 hours a week currently, with no possibility of playing CF. But when I was active I still contributed to threads, still had the same discussions, still had fun and carried on being an active member of the community, but I was able to help out, calm things down and get rid of things that didn't need to be seen instead of sending the links to moderators as I had been doing previously.
The reason I thought some sort of "line" might be needed was partially addressed by Seashore and dot- if the Mods try to express their own opinion on a thread, or give a contrary opinion to promote discussion, the community get its panties all twisted up (pardon the metaphor). I want to see Mods being a part of discussions when they have time for it after they are done with their regular duties, but surely there can be a way of doing this without causing so much drama within the community.
As you point out Natt, extra time is often not available for you Mods. Could I suggest that when the Mods do have free time (meaning they are not editing, removing spam, etc.) they post on other, non-Mod accounts? I'm sure this idea has probably already been voiced and addressed in the 5 years these forums have been running.
Here's how I think this could help-
1. There will be a lot less open hostility towards Mods over disagreements of opinions. Sure, that hostility will still be directed to the same person, but the title of "Mod" will lose much of its negative connotation.
2. The current Mods will not have to worry as much about their personal opinions being blown out of proportion and used against them (most of you probably don't care at all already ^_^).
3. It will be easier for regular members to tell when something a Mod says/does is because he is doing his job, and when he is just being a part of the community.
This probably seems like a way of babying the unhappy members of the forums, and maybe it is. Either way, what do yall think about this? -
Firstly, Sea, baby, breathe.
secondlyAs you point out Natt, extra time is often not available for you Mods. Could I suggest that when the Mods do have free time (meaning they are not editing, removing spam, etc.) they post on other, non-Mod accounts? I'm sure this idea has probably already been voiced and addressed in the 5 years these forums have been running.
Spoiler for you....I used to, and I'm sure some others have done in the past too (not sure about current, as I don't get the chance to talk much). Some people knew about my alts, most didn't...same as my in-game alts... -
(Exhales after holding breath for 7 hours) Phew that was rough- why was I not breathing again?
Anyway: So you agree with me then...You found that this was helpful?
Sorry, should have clarified (aka I didn't see your name) - by Sea I mean [MOD]Seahoe - sorry for the confusion.can I be a MOD?$$$ first buddy.
^^^ pretty much jst this.
![]Sake](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/33/navatar_6776233.gif){kind=avatar}
![]zZ[](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/45/navatar_5470345.gif){kind=avatar}
![]SKoRM](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/82/navatar_12655482.gif){kind=avatar}
![[MOD]Polleus](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/7/navatar_8918107.gif){kind=avatar}
![[dot]](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/27/navatar_2942827.gif){kind=avatar}
![[Seashore]](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/39/navatar_12098639.gif){kind=avatar}
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.5K CrossFire
- 709 CrossFire Announcements
- 712 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 319 Community
- 12 Modes
- 392 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 73 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 16 Looking for a Team?
- 523 CrossFire Support
- 7 Suggestion
- 15 CrossFire Guides
- 37 CrossFire Off Topic