banJerom wrote:But then if you refuse to remove posts and also won't actually be strict about people consistently misbehaving then how can you actually enforce the rules?
Unofficial poll on moderation
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
Well, pretty much.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
gibson wrote:banJerom wrote:But then if you refuse to remove posts and also won't actually be strict about people consistently misbehaving then how can you actually enforce the rules?
But they also refuse to consistently ban and it takes ages for someone to get banned. So theres really little tools to keep the forums clean. Especially if you're not a regular flamer/spammer then you'll get away with ruining a few threads and I actually think thats happening.
Like laurence drake is not close to being banned nor are his posts being deleted but then Id say the forum is much better off without his posts most of the time.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
I actually like Laurence's posts, they are often funny. I'm sure some would say the forum is better off without your posts. You see, it's all very subjective.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
I wasn't aware anyone thought Laurence's posts were funny. Interesting.
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
Yes, subjectivity is indeed an interesting concept. Especially to people who consider their own opinion the only valid one.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
Goodspeed wrote:I actually like Laurence's posts, they are often funny. I'm sure some would say the forum is better off without your posts. You see, it's all very subjective.
You missed the point though.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
I didn't. I don't agree with it but I don't feel like getting into it right now. We've been over this so many times already.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
Which clearly means you missed the point.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
not in my experience. I got banned almost instantly after I made a thread about nice smurf, got warned, and posted it in 2 other threads.Jerom wrote:gibson wrote:banJerom wrote:But then if you refuse to remove posts and also won't actually be strict about people consistently misbehaving then how can you actually enforce the rules?
But they also refuse to consistently ban and it takes ages for someone to get banned. So theres really little tools to keep the forums clean. Especially if you're not a regular flamer/spammer then you'll get away with ruining a few threads and I actually think thats happening.
Like laurence drake is not close to being banned nor are his posts being deleted but then Id say the forum is much better off without his posts most of the time.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
...and then Age of Empires IV was announced. Gibson paid the ultimate price.
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
Okay. How's that? ELI5 this elusive point of yours.Jerom wrote:Which clearly means you missed the point.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
Goodspeed wrote:Okay. How's that? ELI5 this elusive point of yours.Jerom wrote:Which clearly means you missed the point.
I'm just saying I'm afraid the moderation policy leads to no tools to actually enforce rules and then I came up with this example of this guy ignoring the rules and getting away with it basically. It's just an example. Thought it was pretty clear from actually carefully reading the things I had been posting. Kinda feels like you just read the last line and then assumed I'd be saying this one thing and then went with that..
- Imperial Noob
- Lancer
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Feb 29, 2016
- Location: Well hello DEre
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
1. I voted for cheater accusations as a non-heresy, because such a list would make it easier for people not to learn cheater identities with their own free time and good mood, relying on the bad luck of others instead. Capture invading monster trucks on screen and be afraid to warn anyone in the community of such occurrence, because the court will punish YOU. It's like defending the good name of Lord Sauron, rofl. Even when some have encounter a certain cheater themselves, they might have forgotten him/her already and fall into a trap after a few months or a year. A list based on evidence and reports in threads would remind us of the bad trolls. Alternatively what? Should everyone keep separate, private lists of cheaters? Maybe I am missing something, but Victorian morals are passe, aren't they?
2. Scheduling threads should be public, but posting in them should be enabled by the mods for certain people only. In consequence, the public will remain in power to see if something is wrong, but will not disrupt if it is ok.
3. Laurence is a connoisseur, our own Remy Gaillard, but sometimes... I would like to see him at least pinched, so that he had to put more effort into the quality of his repertoir.
4. Pecelot redirecting people to archived threads is a very positive force. I hope the forum of our size had at least three such archivists, it would be so much easier to gather knowledge.
Edit: discussing moderation freely is not bad, if the points made are valid and in the context of the thread. If they are not valid, then it is classified as off-top and posters can be punished for it like Al Capone for avoiding taxes.
2. Scheduling threads should be public, but posting in them should be enabled by the mods for certain people only. In consequence, the public will remain in power to see if something is wrong, but will not disrupt if it is ok.
3. Laurence is a connoisseur, our own Remy Gaillard, but sometimes... I would like to see him at least pinched, so that he had to put more effort into the quality of his repertoir.
4. Pecelot redirecting people to archived threads is a very positive force. I hope the forum of our size had at least three such archivists, it would be so much easier to gather knowledge.
Edit: discussing moderation freely is not bad, if the points made are valid and in the context of the thread. If they are not valid, then it is classified as off-top and posters can be punished for it like Al Capone for avoiding taxes.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
Yeah I got that. I replied to the Laurence part specifically because I wanted to point out that what constitutes a low quality post is very subjective. He may be ignoring the rules but he's not necessarily breaking them. That's often in the eye of the beholder. Your wording, "the forum would be better off without his posts most of the time", was especially questionable.Jerom wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Okay. How's that? ELI5 this elusive point of yours.Jerom wrote:Which clearly means you missed the point.
I'm just saying I'm afraid the moderation policy leads to no tools to actually enforce rules and then I came up with this example of this guy ignoring the rules and getting away with it basically. It's just an example. Thought it was pretty clear from actually carefully reading the things I had been posting. Kinda feels like you just read the last line and then assumed I'd be saying this one thing and then went with that..
I didn't want to reply to your entire post because it would just be us repeating the same points we have been repeating for years already. This thread is only about gathering data from the rest of the community.
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
Dodge, dodge, dodge... grow up, man!
Re: Unofficial poll on moderation
There is only Garja – no subjectivity.Goodspeed wrote:Yes, subjectivity is indeed an interesting concept. Especially to people who consider their own opinion the only valid one.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests