To Moderators: Concerning new people and other related incidents

goldenraptor wrote: I only read the initial post and a three of the following posts of Mr. Rhade’s argument. And now I shall speak my piece.

I do not moderate the off-topic any more in terms of spamming and language because I do not feel the new moderation standards imposed by the newer moderators is something I can support. I have nothing but respect for the newer moderators who maintain this site both often and actively. I cannot maintain that rhythm and therefore am inactive mostly in terms of posting but still try to keep the site clean.

When I asked Bjarne to become a moderator I had no intention at all of gaining power purely to be above others. The site was rampant with racism and excessive spamming. There was a flurry of new members daily, and it was not a personal experience for me. Then came the attacks of spam that lasted for hundreds of new topics in a 20 minute window. I asked for new moderators.

With the new moderators came new rules. I did not like these rules but I will not for personal disagreements to affect the course of natural progress of websites. Members became more personal with each other and administrators, and topics that addressed personal issues of specific members came to place. This called for the right actions of deleting/locking those threads. But this also forced new rules regarding privacy.

When multiple spam attacks by NSFH appeared on the site I made a rash decision: I asked Bjarne to hire the next appropriate person for moderator. This person has done an excellent job since but this hiring has in effect caused a new flurry of wants and needs of a position that was not needed in excess. This is what happened to the site regarding moderators. A competition for moderator positions were created by members, for members, with administrator support.


Regarding the form in which topics are handled. I do not post here any more because this site has lost passion from 2005 and 2006. You could post anything in the off-topic short of racism. If you had more than a few topics with the same name it was considered spamming. Nothing else. A person could and would post many times under the same message without any backlash.


I do not believe topics like this are spamming:

Topic Title: Year
Topic Message: 2008



I do not believe we should restrict the free will of our members.


This is my statement.

Cid wrote:

It’s a bigger deal because the site is beginning to expand. We need to make it more friendly to these new members as well as keep the old members satisfied.

We can’t cater to the needs of seniors and expect to gain new population just as well we can’t completely cater to the wants of newbies and expect to keep the seniors happy. There has to be a line drawn in between. Right now, that line is mostly on the side of the seniors. That line has to be pushed back towards the newbs some in order to accommodate for a newer generation.

kev360 wrote:
oh yes travis, lets all be nice and support each other! it’ll be a happy little community! bunnies and mother fuckin rainbows all around! if catering to the wants of the noobies involves restricting what makes moviecodec so great, i want NO PART OF IT.

gabmed wrote:
Congratulations,you just proved youre hypocrite

goldenraptor wrote: In 2005 and 2006, I believe the flaming was handled by the members. Moderators joined the topics enthusiastically as members and picked sides. Things resolved themselves over time.

kev360 wrote: this goes out to both, so i’ll just put it in one. (weird, you both basic said the same thing..)

if you are RESTRICTING what people can or cannot say, how is that freedom? just because it makes someone feel bad doesn’t mean that its in any way taking away, or even hindering, their right to say whatever they want. i can say whatever the fuck i want, and its on whoever i’m talking to to decide if they want to respond or ignore me. restricting freedom of speech is in now way liberating us. you are a fool if you think that.

kev360 wrote: this goes out to both, so i’ll just put it in one. (weird, you both basic said the same thing..)

if you are RESTRICTING what people can or cannot say, how is that freedom? just because it makes someone feel bad doesn’t mean that its in any way taking away, or even hindering, their right to say whatever they want. i can say whatever the fuck i want, and its on whoever i’m talking to to decide if they want to respond or ignore me. restricting freedom of speech is in now way liberating us. you are a fool if you think that.

Skull_Kid wrote:
ya, but the thing is, that doesnt happen anymore... most members just keep going at it until a bigger force (a mod or reliable member) steps in to stop them... if only things were the way you discribed the old times still... then we wouldnt need all this debating and such...

kev360 wrote:
if you are RESTRICTING what people can or cannot say, how is that freedom? just because it makes someone feel bad doesn’t mean that its in any way taking away, or even hindering, their right to say whatever they want. i can say whatever the fuck i want, and its on whoever i’m talking to to decide if they want to respond or ignore me. restricting freedom of speech is in now way liberating us. you are a fool if you think that.

Tyreaus Rhade wrote:

I think flaming a member on-and-off for roughly a month is pretty damned excessive...but what the fuck do I know, I’m only 15...
Yeah, GR nailed it best when he said it’s lost it’s edge and passion.
Guess the others were right when they said it was a stupid battle to try and fix it too.

Cid wrote:

We’re not restricting what you can say.

Think of this like a school or a place of business. You’ve got to handle things in moderation.

Excessively flaming is already against site rules. We’re just going to be enforcing that rule more strictly.

Usually, we don’t ban or warn for it. It tends to just be an add on when we do ban somebody for other reasons. Now, however, we’re going to start enforcing it instead of tacking it on.