How much fun is "too much" for these forums?

[repiV]

And my experience doesn't come from nowhere either. I know that being "hands-off" is generally a recipe for disaster. So it comes down to a difference of opinion, nothing more.

I post on a forum that has no moderators whatsoever. You can post anything you like and you can never be banned. It was very successful for a long time, the only reason it fell by the wayside is because it didn't really attract a wide, varied audience and the kind of people on it tended to be very abusive and cliquey. The constant fighting drove a lot of people off.
People aren't like that here. And there aren't really any cliques, so any "brutal arguments" would be mostly self-regulating with the main offender eating a big load of STFU very quickly.

 

[Stigmata]

That's because you can't define the boundaries. You absolutely can not legislate for every single possible case. Hence the need for moderators, that can make the grey area decisions.

Then why are there so many cases of double standards here? Pulse got an infraction for a humorous post - and countless other people get nothing for bypassing the swearing filter, the min-character limit, and using single-word replies. Hell, I've replied with "" more times than I can remember, sometimes in the Politics section, and nobody bats an eye. Pointless threads like "Comment on the above person's sig!" go on for hundreds of posts, and only become "spam" once one of you look at it and go "Hmm, you know, I just don't think a spam thread should go above six hundred replies."

It's not fair, it's not enjoyable, and it certainly doesn't paint the moderating staff as a well-balanced, consistent bunch of people.

 

[Darkside55]

That's not self-regulation, that's threads dying through lack of interest. Threads that contained objectionable or offensive content would likely get more popular, not less.

Well, we certainly saw that with the number of views on the Jade Raymond thread.

Glenn deleted the thread - you'd have to ask him about his reasoning.

I actually PMed him about it before starting the thread, as I said. Still waiting on an answer, but I wanted to open the discussion.

Like the Hydrometeor thread in the staff forum, it kind of tapered away without any real solution.

I'm just trying to get an approximation for what we can and cannot allow. If it's all based on personal discretion...well, I don't trust that too much. You might not be able to define the absolute limits, but what's contained therein CAN be classified. Specific do's, don't's. Which is what I was trying to get at.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I post on a forum that has no moderators whatsoever. You can post anything you like and you can never be banned. It was very successful for a long time, the only reason it fell by the wayside is because it didn't really attract a wide, varied audience and the kind of people on it tended to be very abusive and cliquey. The constant fighting drove a lot of people off.
People aren't like that here. And there aren't really any cliques, so any "brutal arguments" would be mostly self-regulating with the main offender eating a big load of STFU very quickly.

You'll forgive me if we don't rush to try it out.

Then why are there so many cases of double standards here? Pulse got an infraction for a humorous post - and countless other people get nothing for bypassing the swearing filter, the min-character limit, and using single-word replies. Hell, I've replied with "" more times than I can remember, sometimes in the Politics section, and nobody bats an eye. Pointless threads like "Comment on the above person's sig!" go on for hundreds of posts, and only become "spam" once one of you look at it and go "Hmm, you know, I just don't think a spam thread should go above six hundred replies."

It's not fair, it's not enjoyable, and it certainly doesn't paint the moderating staff as a well-balanced, consistent bunch of people.

So you'd rather we very consistently and strictly enforced the rules to the letter, would you?
A lot of minor stuff we turn a blind eye to - I know I tend to ignore most of it. When people report posts, that's when infractions tend to occur. Who reports posts?

 

[CptStern]

oh oh oh I do I do!!!


I tend to agree with Pi and samon, mods are mostly fairly lenient and reasonable

 

[Stigmata]

So you'd rather we very consistently and strictly enforced the rules to the letter, would you?

Consistently, yes. It should be pretty clear by now that the often-random strictness of the staff is fairly unpopular among us proles.

 

[repiV]

A lot of minor stuff we turn a blind eye to - I know I tend to ignore most of it. When people report posts, that's when infractions tend to occur. Who reports posts?

That's a fair way of putting it but it's also flawed. I would never report a post, no matter how offensive I found it because it's their right to offend me and I'm more than happy to fight fire with fire. Crying for the mods because you find something offensive is just pathetic and babyish.
Which means if someone pisses me off they're a lot less likely to receive an infraction than if I piss off a crybaby.

 

[kriztov]

I pity the guy who starts the next page. Page starters always cop it.

Anyway. This argument seems to be going round in circles, either sort it or lock it, please.

 

[Darkside55]

"Blind eyes" and "moderator's discretion" aren't always advantageous. It always leaves someone feeling wronged in the end.

"That person got away with X, but I got punished for Y!"
"Personal discretion!"

 

[CptStern]

That's a fair way of putting it but it's also flawed. I would never report a post, no matter how offensive I found it because it's their right to offend me and I'm more than happy to fight fire with fire. Crying for the mods because you find something offensive is just pathetic and babyish.
Which means if someone pisses me off they're a lot less likely to receive an infraction than if I piss off a crybaby.

reported






anyways I'm all for less restrictions or even keeping the status quo .. not tighter moderation

 

[99.vikram]

All I know is that -

1. Pulse got punished for a lame pun.
2. A living, healthy thread was deleted.

Why?

 

[Darkside55]

I'm for less restriction as well, but if we're going to be restricted on certain things, I'd like them to be up to more than, "because I felt I should."

In all honesty I don't even blame Glenn for closing down the thread, I'm just curious as to why. And I recalled that Hydro was called out by a few different mods for spam as well, just like the Avatar thread, and I thought to myself, "Well, let's discuss what should be considered spam."

 

[Raziaar]

I pity the guy who starts the next page. Page starters always cop it.

Anyway. This argument seems to be going round in circles, either sort it or lock it, please.

Heh. I have an uncanny ability to be the guy who starts a new page.

Let's see if it works this time.

EDIT: Damn, almost worked.

 

[lun4tic]

anyways I'm all for less restrictions or even keeping the status quo .. not tighter moderation

stern /stɜrn/ adjective, -er, -est.
1. firm, strict, or uncompromising: stern discipline.
2. hard, harsh, or severe: a stern reprimand.
3. rigorous or austere; of an unpleasantly serious character: stern times.
4. grim or forbidding in aspect: a stern face.
5. irrelevant, unwanted, and entirely uninteresting: CptStern

 

[Darkside55]

...infraction.

 

[Solaris]

stern /stɜrn/ adjective, -er, -est.
1. firm, strict, or uncompromising: stern discipline.
2. hard, harsh, or severe: a stern reprimand.
3. rigorous or austere; of an unpleasantly serious character: stern times.
4. grim or forbidding in aspect: a stern face.
5. irrelevant, unwanted, and entirely uninteresting: CptStern

Go away.

 

[Raziaar]

Go away.

I wish you would go away too.

 

[jondy]

What the devil is wrong with Solaris? Or were you just trying to top the next page

 

[lun4tic]

Way to take a joke.

Deplorable.

 

[<RJMC>]

I say we rebel and form a internet political move whitout authority called: nomods

 

[Raziaar]

I say we rebel and form a internet political move whitout authority called: nomods

We'll roam across the barren internet, never setting up a permanent address. Our life is a mobile one, born of high speeds and free speech, where no mod can touch us. We are... the Nomods.

 

[CyberPitz]

I personally notice this forum is pretty light on the restrictions. I have never had an issue with threads being closed, or useless infractions getting put down. If anything, most infractions go away, right?

 

[Rapstah]

Infractions are like deep, deep cuts that hurt for a week, but then they go away and leave a horrible scar that reminds you of useless moderator dictature every time you see it.

*shivers*

 

[CyberPitz]

Infractions are like deep, deep cuts that hurt for a week, but then they go away and leave a horrible scar that reminds you of useless moderator dictature every time you see it.

*shivers*

The only infraction I've received is when they said "Don't post so and so in this thread" then I did it Only lasted 3 months, and as since long worn off. It's not TOO hard to notice what rules are in set and what boundries. Sure there's no list or anything, but come on. If you talk about "so and so irrelivant topic" in opposite "so and so topic"...it's spam!

 

[Druckles]

Interesting in how few hours I was away, possibly less than hours, the discussion has diverged to suggesting a "Blackhole", attacking the mods, and now some interesting spam.

Personally (although that doesn't really help), I think a topic deemed to be a discussion by the first post should be regulated greater than that with a more relaxed opening post. For example, a "Help me understand aetheism" would count as a discussion, as the post itself asked a question to the general audience, about a subject matter which is not black or white. Something with less discussion however, such as the "My Avatar" topic in question, is much less inclined to lead to logical, and thoughtful debate, and thus bound to lead into a greater "spammy area". I think the moderation on the boards is fine, and I have no problem with the way they do it, (certainly after the infamous unamed one...) but I believe spam where it is acknowledged as fun by the entire community and enjoyed by all should not come under that category of spam, as I would have deemed spam an entirely different definition.

I considered spamming the boards... then realised I wasn't that stupid... then felt embarassed as to even suggesting it.

And I'm hoping that grey areas can be tightened slightly.

Edit: How long does it take me to post... got like 4/5 posts in between reading the topic and sending the post :hmph:

One more thing to add about spamming, flaming and trolling.
I'd only ever be able to put someone under a category of a spammer, flamer or troller if it were consistant with other actions. For example, someone who consistantly posts things in order to upset people or annoy them or to no good use of the entire board. If there is an occasional post by a user like Pulse, it shouldn't be considered spam... as spam is a whole, not its seperate parts.

Damnit! I'm hungry

 

[Rapstah]

My opinion is the Warning function is under-used. It serves as a perfect line to tell people "no more".

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Which is what the infractions do. It's not a ban (unless you have lots already or have done something particularly heinous, in which case you deserve one) and it reinforces the warning.

 

[Darkside55]

I joined the Nomods and all I got was a crappy t-shirt.

Indeed, warnings where warranted. I've seen warnings used to pretty good effect though, so...

 

[<RJMC>]

We'll roam across the barren internet, never setting up a permanent address. Our life is a mobile one, born of high speeds and free speech, where no mod can touch us. We are... the Nomods.

trashing everywhere, anyoing stupids noobs, filling the air whit porn, we will be....the Nomods!

 

[Druckles]

The fact is that infractions are ok to an extent. You say "if you have lots already" but then how is a person to know when they're going to get one. Might be going about there daily posting and suddenly get an infraction! They're like... oh, should cut out the spam. But one day, they post a humorous remark (or something they think is humorous) and suddenly they have another one. And so forth.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

If you've got enough infractions that another would cause a ban, then you should really have understood that your previous behaviour was being seen as offensive and to curb it.

If we didn't have infractions, people would get a bunch of warnings and then BLAM! Arbitrary, random-length ban.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I agree with Darkside, though I must say all the infractions I got were deserved.

 

[Druckles]

My apologies, I'm not entirely sure how an infraction works...

Surely if you obtained enough infractions over the course of your time being here, which could've been 10 years, so that one more could constitue a ban, even though you weren't any more offensive than any other member on the board.

 

[Raziaar]

My apologies, I'm not entirely sure how an infraction works...

Surely if you obtained enough infractions over the course of your time being here, which could've been 10 years, so that one more could constitue a ban, even though you weren't any more offensive than any other member on the board.

As far as I understand, which I don't know for sure since I have never had one, infractions go away over time. Short half-life.

 

[Stigmata]

Short half-life.

I see what you did there.

 

[Druckles]

In which case I take back my previous statement, and support the use of infractions.

 

[repiV]

reported






anyways I'm all for less restrictions or even keeping the status quo .. not tighter moderation

It's nice to know you care. :E

 

[Hectic Glenn]

Infractions are perfect, verbal warning don't work from experience and it ends in a premature ban rather than people realising "If I do it once more I'm gone", to reassess their posting is exactly what we're looking to do.

I out rightly refuse to accept that the moderators on this site was overly harsh or strict, in fact I think more needs to be done indeed, but the mods use their discretion as well as trying to warn or steer threads back in the right direction. Collectively, from what I can see, the job is being done well.

On the specific case of the Avatar thread you asked about Darkside, I deleted that thread. My initial thought was purely it being a normal thread about avatars, but it quickly spiralled into the picture posting contest of various eras, including this one picture you guys seem to keep posting in various threads (which is unarguably spam). Also people were posting in size 6 etc, and trust me the infraction spree would have been a job for the entire staff of HL2.net, Halflife Fallout and PHL. It was deleted to avoid giving out all those infractions, clean up the forum and set a standard I guess. The last few pages I recall being especially bad.

Regardless it's easy to criticise the actions of moderators, when it seems they are trying to ruin your fun. There needs to be a cut off point to what is acceptable, and believe me it's not straight forward. If you guys would like more totalitarian moderators it could be arranged -_-

 

[Druckles]

Wondered when you'd show up.

Surely the thread could've been closed without any infractions being handed out. Mere warnings to the posters of consequences in future. The fact that most people posting on there were old members of the community, I'm sure they were all mature enough to accept it.

 

[Asknoone]

I can't believe Glenn had to justify his decision here. :|