goldenraptor wrote:
With all due respect, during the years in which _lashing_ and SA-X and I were controlling these threads, they were generally fine. After most members had racked up 6000+ posts they felt that they are eligible for a moderation committee. Our newest moderators are generally entirely my idea: indeed, it was I who asked for Cid and Firewolf to be hired at one time, and I asked Bjarne to make Weeman a moderator. So I do feel insulted to a great degree here, although I cannot place as to why and there is no reason to for blame. However, I think it may be from being told that my job is inadequate in ways and a failure to elaborate in which ways it is.
This is a personal lash against you, just my thoughts on that idea.
I never said that you were inadequate, just that the older moderators might be a bit too old. Of course this that idea would only be an extreme solution that probably won\\\'t even work. I just pointed out what others forums try to do. Please don\\\'t take it as a personal attack upon you, SA-X, or Toltalitus.
I did however bring up several ideas to Bjarne in the feedback section, and that idea was one of them. But I made sure to stress that the other two ideas would be a much better solution.
I\'m terribly sorry. I realized minutes later that I had not expressed my opinion properly and it sounded childish and immature at best.
You have no reason to apologize, it was my fault for not fully explaining myself in my post.
Shadow of the Night wrote:
I think this site just needs a new set of moderators. Firewolf and Cid can stay because they\'ve been a mod for less then a year. Mods should be changed out yearly and positions should be given to newer but still trustworthy members. to keep it fresh and to keep them all thinking the same ways, It\'s obvious that a person who was on the site for two years will have different views then a person who\'s been around for 6 months. That results in, as Online Predator said, contradictions betweem them. However, if you keep all of the moderators in the same timeframe and even age group they\'ll think about the same way and will contradict each other\'s decisions even less.
Do I know what to tell you here? No, I do not, because in light of things, you are correct. I suppose that the prospect of me giving up a very nice hobby of mine is something I have not considered, but there is no denying my time is coming. Judging from my latest plethora of posting styles I am losing what little integrity I had. Perhaps this is just a phase; I certainly hope so.
Shadow of the Night wrote:
Bjarne, here lately there has been a lot of talk about the moderators having different views on how rules are to be handled and punishments given out. I have a couple suggestions that you should consider. I will order them by which would be most effective.
1. You talk with each Moderator as a group possibly in a eternal chat room or a thread that only you guys can see. During this talk you all work together to determine how each situation should be handled.
2. You do a major overhaul on the site rules, going highly indepth and explaining every situation imaginable thoroughly and tell us right on the rules page how mods should handle he thing.
3. You dump all the mods you have and hire a new team, all of them being about the same age and having joined the site about the same time. This way most of them will think about the same way, or enough so that they won\\\'t be handing out punishments for things other mods said didn\\\'t need warnings or bannings.
Out of the 3 ideas number 1 would be the most effective and number 3 might not even work. But I\\\'d recommend both 1 and 2. I\\\'m saying this because pretty much everybody else is too busy complaining and flaming each other to do it.
Shadow of the Night wrote:
I\\\'d like to point out that idea 3 is only up there because I\\\'ve seen larger forums do it. They generally try to change the staff up every year as well. The problem is that it keeps the members from getting to know the moderators too well, and thus they always feel a sense of fear because they don\\\'t know how the new staff will act. So I wouldn\\\'t recommend number 3 at all. I think that you need to do both 1 and 2 for the best results.
That\'s what I posted in feedback on the rules thread. I would hope that you all agree?
I definetly agree on #1 and people have been trying to press that for a while now. I brought the idea to Cid about an off-site forum for the meantime, but Bjarne wouldn’t be on it as often.
#2 would be difficult at best, as trying to determine every last situation would make the page of rules enormous, and it likely wouldn’t cover everything.
#3 is highly debatable, obviously. It’s an iffy thing to implement, as not everyone may agree with it.
Shadow of the Night wrote:
Bjarne, here lately there has been a lot of talk about the moderators having different views on how rules are to be handled and punishments given out. I have a couple suggestions that you should consider. I will order them by which would be most effective.
1. You talk with each Moderator as a group possibly in a eternal chat room or a thread that only you guys can see. During this talk you all work together to determine how each situation should be handled.
2. You do a major overhaul on the site rules, going highly indepth and explaining every situation imaginable thoroughly and tell us right on the rules page how mods should handle he thing.
3. You dump all the mods you have and hire a new team, all of them being about the same age and having joined the site about the same time. This way most of them will think about the same way, or enough so that they won\\\'t be handing out punishments for things other mods said didn\\\'t need warnings or bannings.
Out of the 3 ideas number 1 would be the most effective and number 3 might not even work. But I\\\'d recommend both 1 and 2. I\\\'m saying this because pretty much everybody else is too busy complaining and flaming each other to do it.
Number one is a feature I’m not sure will be very easy to implement. Creating a channel made for moderators will more than likely take some complex coding.
I disagree with number two because the first reason I joined here as member was the opening of the forums, and the freedom expressed. I find that these forums are much less strict but still heavily enforced (responses to an incident may take up to 20 minutes at times).
Tyreaus wrote:
I definetly agree on #1 and people have been trying to press that for a while now. I brought the idea to Cid about an off-site forum for the meantime, but Bjarne wouldn\'t be on it as often.
#2 would be difficult at best, as trying to determine every last situation would make the page of rules enormous, and it likely wouldn\'t cover everything.
#3 is highly debatable, obviously. It\'s an iffy thing to implement, as not everyone may agree with it.
They don\'t need an off site forum, everything NEEDS to be handled onsite. Bjarne needs to make a Moderator specific section for all of you to talk in when it\'s needed. This is actually the first forum I\'ve been to that doesn\'t have such a place.
You should see some of the posting rules on other sites. They don\'t keep them short because nobody reads them anyways. They\'re usually long, drawn out, and take up 3-4 pages. It\'s a guideline for Moderators to follow, not the members.
Idea 3 is my least favorite, because we\'d be loosing fine Mods like Goldenraptor, SA-X, Etain, and eventually Cid and Firewolf. Like I explained on the second post quoted, it\'s only there because larger forums do it.
goldenraptor wrote:
Number one is a feature I\'m not sure will be very easy to implement. Creating a channel made for moderators will more than likely take some complex coding.
I disagree with number two because the first reason I joined here as member was the opening of the forums, and the freedom expressed. I find that these forums are much less strict but still heavily enforced (responses to an incident may take up to 20 minutes at times).
Number three is debatable, as Tyreaus stated.
What he would have to do to make a mod specific section is just simply create a new section and allow only members with the \“moderator\" permission to do view, post, and create threads in it. I could type up the coding for the section in about 60 minutes from scratch. But Bjarne\'s obviously got the coding for creating his forums saved so I would think it\'d only take him about 20 minutes to do it. It\'s very simple to do.
As far as the freedom of the forums, I wouldn\'t want it to change. But as it is now, sometimes you guys are forced to come up with a rule on the spot for the situation, which causes inconsistencies, which is bad. I think that the rules simply need to be clarrified some.
Tyreaus wrote:
I definetly agree on #1 and people have been trying to press that for a while now. I brought the idea to Cid about an off-site forum for the meantime, but Bjarne wouldn\'t be on it as often.
#2 would be difficult at best, as trying to determine every last situation would make the page of rules enormous, and it likely wouldn\'t cover everything.
#3 is highly debatable, obviously. It\'s an iffy thing to implement, as not everyone may agree with it.
They don\'t need an off site forum, everything NEEDS to be handled onsite. Bjarne needs to make a Moderator specific section for all of you to talk in when it\'s needed. This is actually the first forum I\'ve been to that doesn\'t have such a place.
You should see some of the posting rules on other sites. They don\'t keep them short because nobody reads them anyways. They\'re usually long, drawn out, and take up 3-4 pages. It\'s a guideline for Moderators to follow, not the members.
Idea 3 is my least favorite, because we\'d be loosing fine Mods like Goldenraptor, SA-X, Etain, and eventually Cid and Firewolf. Like I explained on the second post quoted, it\'s only there because larger forums do it.
I was talking with one of the mods of using an off-site forum for the time being, until Bjarne does implement a side-forum for that type of discussion. It’s only meant as a temporary solution until the proper one can be established.
Here, people are reading the rules differently than on other places. If it’s not one loophole trying to be found, it’s another thing that should be changed with them. Some of the problems and arguments here are over rules. (I’m finding more and more of this becoming more evident as well, as time progresses here)
Either way, it would be hard to write up every possible scenerio for the rules, and time consuming. The webmaster doesn’t have a lot of time either.
Don’t get me wrong, refining the rules is a good idea, but to try to cover up every little niche that could come up is lengthy.
goldenraptor wrote:
Agreed. Its a double standard, really. We’re set out to protect against racism, but we’re all supposed to protect those being racist...
I disagree completely and openly with Zucas’s argument.
So we should protect Christians even though there strong anti semitism and hate towards Muslims that caused in many deaths. And we should protect the Muslims and the Jews even though they have fought for thousands of years for territories resulting in many deaths.
I don’t agree with the Nazi way nor would I ever support them in any way. I was only joking around as anything to have gotten 21 banned would have been fine with me. Lesser of 2 evils.
But now what you said is a double standard. If we shouldn’t defend Nazis cause of their discrimination and mass genocides then why should we defend other religions/philosophies such as Christianity, Islamic, and Judaism when they have doen the exact same thing in history. That’s a real double standard.
So you’re blaming all Christians for antisemitism?
That’s discrimination right there.
I didn’t blame anyone. You said I did. Watch yourself. Like me your warned as well and your treading on thin air.
I simply said that it’s a double standard that we are allowed to discriminate against Nazis for their obvious atrocities then why doesn’t the same apply to other religions/philosophis/political parties. Shouldn’t it work the same way. If you can say fuck Nazis because of the Holocaust then why can’t I say fuck Christians cause of the mass murders and wars against the Muslims and the many massacres of Jewish people that.
This is what TR was tryign to explain earlier today in the topic he told me not to reply in. You can’t have a hypocritical view of this. What goes one way must be in all the same fairness towards anything else. Also as Cid said a couple of days ago you can’t put a price on anyone’s life so arguing which atrocity is worse is simply inhumane. And finally as Carl said their shouldn’t be double standards. But unluckily Carl didn’t notice the actual double standard going on here as if it’s alright to discriminate against one group for atrocities then why not do it to all the groups who have done similar atrocities as well.
--- It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns.
goldenraptor wrote:
Agreed. Its a double standard, really. We’re set out to protect against racism, but we’re all supposed to protect those being racist...
I disagree completely and openly with Zucas’s argument.
So we should protect Christians even though there strong anti semitism and hate towards Muslims that caused in many deaths. And we should protect the Muslims and the Jews even though they have fought for thousands of years for territories resulting in many deaths.
I don’t agree with the Nazi way nor would I ever support them in any way. I was only joking around as anything to have gotten 21 banned would have been fine with me. Lesser of 2 evils.
But now what you said is a double standard. If we shouldn’t defend Nazis cause of their discrimination and mass genocides then why should we defend other religions/philosophies such as Christianity, Islamic, and Judaism when they have doen the exact same thing in history. That’s a real double standard.
So you’re blaming all Christians for antisemitism?
That’s discrimination right there.
I didn’t blame anyone. You said I did. Watch yourself. Like me your warned as well and your treading on thin air.
I simply said that it’s a double standard that we are allowed to discriminate against Nazis for their obvious atrocities then why doesn’t the same apply to other religions/philosophis/political parties. Shouldn’t it work the same way. If you can say fuck Nazis because of the Holocaust then why can’t I say fuck Christians cause of the mass murders and wars against the Muslims and the many massacres of Jewish people that.
This is what TR was tryign to explain earlier today in the topic he told me not to reply in. You can’t have a hypocritical view of this. What goes one way must be in all the same fairness towards anything else. Also as Cid said a couple of days ago you can’t put a price on anyone’s life so arguing which atrocity is worse is simply inhumane. And finally as Carl said their shouldn’t be double standards. But unluckily Carl didn’t notice the actual double standard going on here as if it’s alright to discriminate against one group for atrocities then why not do it to all the groups who have done similar atrocities as well.
I asked you not to reply to that thread, so that you two could lay off each other, unfortunatly that seemed to fail...
As far as I know, you aren’t allowed to discriminate against ANY group...including Nazis...
Skull_Kid wrote:
i think that guests shouldnt be able to make new topics, they make up
stupid topics
topics that already exsist
hate topics
vs topics
i dont like it when all these guests make topics, that should be one of the privliges of being a member. thats my way of seing it atleast
You are one to talk sir-
what???
i havent made any hate topics, i made 2 vs topics and 1 stupid topic for someone that couldnt figure out how to post them(after a few days of begging) and if i made any topics that already exist im sorry, i try to search for a topic, and when it doesnt come up as found, i make it. and i look at least 5 pages back before posting.
---
Endrance wrote:
I don’t want to be alone anymore. I don’t want to lose anything. Ever again!
Yes well, I would like to chat with you all more. But I\'m afraid I must be heading back off to work now. I had a 45 minute lunchbreak and it\'s just about over. I may be back tomorrow then again it could be a week or so like it was last time.
Shadow of the Night wrote:
Yes well, I would like to chat with you all more. But I\'m afraid I must be heading back off to work now. I had a 45 minute lunchbreak and it\'s just about over. I may be back tomorrow then again it could be a week or so like it was last time.
goldenraptor wrote:
Agreed. Its a double standard, really. We’re set out to protect against racism, but we’re all supposed to protect those being racist...
I disagree completely and openly with Zucas’s argument.
So we should protect Christians even though there strong anti semitism and hate towards Muslims that caused in many deaths. And we should protect the Muslims and the Jews even though they have fought for thousands of years for territories resulting in many deaths.
I don’t agree with the Nazi way nor would I ever support them in any way. I was only joking around as anything to have gotten 21 banned would have been fine with me. Lesser of 2 evils.
But now what you said is a double standard. If we shouldn’t defend Nazis cause of their discrimination and mass genocides then why should we defend other religions/philosophies such as Christianity, Islamic, and Judaism when they have doen the exact same thing in history. That’s a real double standard.
So you’re blaming all Christians for antisemitism?
That’s discrimination right there.
I didn’t blame anyone. You said I did. Watch yourself. Like me your warned as well and your treading on thin air.
I simply said that it’s a double standard that we are allowed to discriminate against Nazis for their obvious atrocities then why doesn’t the same apply to other religions/philosophis/political parties. Shouldn’t it work the same way. If you can say fuck Nazis because of the Holocaust then why can’t I say fuck Christians cause of the mass murders and wars against the Muslims and the many massacres of Jewish people that.
This is what TR was tryign to explain earlier today in the topic he told me not to reply in. You can’t have a hypocritical view of this. What goes one way must be in all the same fairness towards anything else. Also as Cid said a couple of days ago you can’t put a price on anyone’s life so arguing which atrocity is worse is simply inhumane. And finally as Carl said their shouldn’t be double standards. But unluckily Carl didn’t notice the actual double standard going on here as if it’s alright to discriminate against one group for atrocities then why not do it to all the groups who have done similar atrocities as well.
I asked you not to reply to that thread, so that you two could lay off each other, unfortunatly that seemed to fail...
As far as I know, you aren’t allowed to discriminate against ANY group...including Nazis...
I’m pretty sure I’ve yet to reply to it so whatever.
--- It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns.
goldenraptor wrote:
Agreed. Its a double standard, really. We’re set out to protect against racism, but we’re all supposed to protect those being racist...
I disagree completely and openly with Zucas’s argument.
So we should protect Christians even though there strong anti semitism and hate towards Muslims that caused in many deaths. And we should protect the Muslims and the Jews even though they have fought for thousands of years for territories resulting in many deaths.
I don’t agree with the Nazi way nor would I ever support them in any way. I was only joking around as anything to have gotten 21 banned would have been fine with me. Lesser of 2 evils.
But now what you said is a double standard. If we shouldn’t defend Nazis cause of their discrimination and mass genocides then why should we defend other religions/philosophies such as Christianity, Islamic, and Judaism when they have doen the exact same thing in history. That’s a real double standard.
So you’re blaming all Christians for antisemitism?
That’s discrimination right there.
I didn’t blame anyone. You said I did. Watch yourself. Like me your warned as well and your treading on thin air.
I simply said that it’s a double standard that we are allowed to discriminate against Nazis for their obvious atrocities then why doesn’t the same apply to other religions/philosophis/political parties. Shouldn’t it work the same way. If you can say fuck Nazis because of the Holocaust then why can’t I say fuck Christians cause of the mass murders and wars against the Muslims and the many massacres of Jewish people that.
This is what TR was tryign to explain earlier today in the topic he told me not to reply in. You can’t have a hypocritical view of this. What goes one way must be in all the same fairness towards anything else. Also as Cid said a couple of days ago you can’t put a price on anyone’s life so arguing which atrocity is worse is simply inhumane. And finally as Carl said their shouldn’t be double standards. But unluckily Carl didn’t notice the actual double standard going on here as if it’s alright to discriminate against one group for atrocities then why not do it to all the groups who have done similar atrocities as well.
I asked you not to reply to that thread, so that you two could lay off each other, unfortunatly that seemed to fail...
As far as I know, you aren’t allowed to discriminate against ANY group...including Nazis...
I’m pretty sure I’ve yet to reply to it so whatever.
Yes but now it’s sort of moving over here...like a methane cloud...
goldenraptor wrote:
Agreed. Its a double standard, really. We’re set out to protect against racism, but we’re all supposed to protect those being racist...
I disagree completely and openly with Zucas’s argument.
So we should protect Christians even though there strong anti semitism and hate towards Muslims that caused in many deaths. And we should protect the Muslims and the Jews even though they have fought for thousands of years for territories resulting in many deaths.
I don’t agree with the Nazi way nor would I ever support them in any way. I was only joking around as anything to have gotten 21 banned would have been fine with me. Lesser of 2 evils.
But now what you said is a double standard. If we shouldn’t defend Nazis cause of their discrimination and mass genocides then why should we defend other religions/philosophies such as Christianity, Islamic, and Judaism when they have doen the exact same thing in history. That’s a real double standard.
So you’re blaming all Christians for antisemitism?
That’s discrimination right there.
I didn’t blame anyone. You said I did. Watch yourself. Like me your warned as well and your treading on thin air.
I simply said that it’s a double standard that we are allowed to discriminate against Nazis for their obvious atrocities then why doesn’t the same apply to other religions/philosophis/political parties. Shouldn’t it work the same way. If you can say fuck Nazis because of the Holocaust then why can’t I say fuck Christians cause of the mass murders and wars against the Muslims and the many massacres of Jewish people that.
This is what TR was tryign to explain earlier today in the topic he told me not to reply in. You can’t have a hypocritical view of this. What goes one way must be in all the same fairness towards anything else. Also as Cid said a couple of days ago you can’t put a price on anyone’s life so arguing which atrocity is worse is simply inhumane. And finally as Carl said their shouldn’t be double standards. But unluckily Carl didn’t notice the actual double standard going on here as if it’s alright to discriminate against one group for atrocities then why not do it to all the groups who have done similar atrocities as well.
The difference is all Nazis are like that while all Christians are not. Watch yourself son. And it’s not 'you’re treading on thin air', stupid. You can’t tread on air.
Zucas wrote:
Hey I’ve only said 2 things. One telling him what we were both warned for which is neutral in what was said. And secondly explaining what I stated.
But I’m not going to have to do anything further. What is to be done later here has already been set. Out of my hands.
»
Off-Topic
» The 10 Commandments of Moviecodec
