|
Post by Mambo's Here! Look Busy! on Sept 14, 2009 11:20:20 GMT
Some people have accused this board, or the mods, or both, of being 'cliquey'. In what way do you feel that it's cliquey, and how should we get past that and stop it from being that way? Are we too harsh on new members, for instance? I think a good example of that was the Summer Special thread - a member actually left because some members were overly harsh in their comments and they felt victimised. I don't think that's on, even if I wasn't a mod.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Sept 14, 2009 11:55:25 GMT
not once to the extent that you claim. It's an exaggeration, not me being literal. Could you honestly not tell?
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Sept 14, 2009 12:34:30 GMT
Haha, what? An exaggeration? So you are making stuff up. Nobody is going to fall for your patronising rubbish, least of all me.
Nobody has said what you insinuated in your post. You're either lying, or wrong. I would add "stupid", but I know you're not, which is what makes this so frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by Balls on Sept 14, 2009 12:35:32 GMT
not once to the extent that you claim. It's an exaggeration, not me being literal. Could you honestly not tell? How do you not fall down more?
|
|
|
Post by Mambo's Here! Look Busy! on Sept 14, 2009 13:44:27 GMT
Haha, what? An exaggeration? So you are making stuff up. Nobody is going to fall for your patronising rubbish, least of all me. Nobody has said what you insinuated in your post. You're either lying, or wrong. I would add "stupid", but I know you're not, which is what makes this so frustrating. This is the point of the thread though; apparently there are member issues with how the board is being run and no-one is coming to us. We just want to know so that comments like this (both Charles and the replies) don't become an issue.
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Sept 14, 2009 14:02:42 GMT
Haha, what? An exaggeration? So you are making stuff up. Nobody is going to fall for your patronising rubbish, least of all me. Nobody has said what you insinuated in your post. You're either lying, or wrong. I would add "stupid", but I know you're not, which is what makes this so frustrating. This is the point of the thread though; apparently there are member issues with how the board is being run and no-one is coming to us. We just want to know so that comments like this (both Charles and the replies) don't become an issue. Don't worry, there's no issue. If there was, it would be entirely seperate to the matter at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Warped‽‽‽ on Sept 17, 2009 21:41:08 GMT
Eh. Some suggestions I don't expect will be implemented, but it might spark off ideas of your own.
Place a thread in the introductions (or stick a message SOMEWHERE) saying that this forum is mainly frequented by a group of headstrong, opinion heavy, young adults, and due caution is advised. Or words to that effect. Warn people from the get go, at least they might fly off the handle less when people disagree with them.
And although it isn't nice for someone to get in such a huff they feel they must leave a forum, it also isn't the end of the world for any of the parties involved. I probably come across incredibly dickish here, but the fact is it isn't a perfect world, and some people just don't get on. You can cushion the blow with moderation and locking threads as much as you like, but if people don't get on, they don't get on. You can't lock the forum for it. (Not that you would, but I hope you get my gist here)
Or finally, ditch the whole mod system and operate on a system of mutual respect, see how that plays out.
|
|
|
Post by Insector on Sept 17, 2009 22:10:39 GMT
Unban Megajerk
|
|
|
Post by The Shad on Sept 17, 2009 23:00:17 GMT
Or finally, ditch the whole mod system and operate on a system of mutual respect, see how that plays out. That would never work. Ever. This.
|
|
|
Post by Warped‽‽‽ on Sept 17, 2009 23:03:58 GMT
Or finally, ditch the whole mod system and operate on a system of mutual respect, see how that plays out. That would never work. Ever. But it would be hilarious while it lasted.
|
|
|
Post by obsidian on Sept 18, 2009 9:27:29 GMT
Now why would the mods do something as UNFA G GY as this?
|
|
|
Post by Mambo's Here! Look Busy! on Sept 18, 2009 12:58:56 GMT
That would never work. Ever. But it would be hilarious while it lasted. Oooh I was on that "alt STC" board that was funny for about five minutes! That was unmodded methinks..
|
|
|
Post by Warped‽‽‽ on Sept 18, 2009 15:09:29 GMT
That was different. That was unmodded because the whole point was for it to be unmodded. (Okay, it wasn't, but it was a whole joke about liberal/no moderation, so people went crazy with it.)
Some forums can go unmoderated and not be completely stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Mambo's Here! Look Busy! on Sept 18, 2009 15:29:40 GMT
I think with some of the more sensible members here, it could work. We're mostly reasonable people but there is the odd flare here and there, and situations such as Kitty Rose and Chovi need someone to keep an eye on them and where necessary to act. So yes, while I agree this is one of the more friendlier, less strict boards (one forum I was on would issue warnings for incorrect spelling or one word posts ffs) I have seen I still think we need mods. I think your idea for sticking a warning for newer members about discussing and debate is a good one, perhaps it could go on the Rules thread... the problem is that sometimes it seems clear new members dive straight into the main forum. Perhaps we could change the forum so that you can see the intro thread without having to log in or that you have to make one post in the Intro threads before entering the main site. When I first came here you had to have posted 50 times before you could enter the Lounge Zone etc.. although I forget what it was called then. The Groovy Train methinks. Other mods/admin type peeps, what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Sept 18, 2009 15:43:33 GMT
I think bringing back the "50 posts to access the rest of the forum" worked quite well, and think it could be re-introduced (perhaps make it 25 posts, as 50 could be a bit daunting to new people). It gives people time to get used to people in a smaller environment.
As regards to the warning, yes, I think that it could be brought in, but I feel that the forum isn't as welcoming to newer people as it once was, which I think everyone should take on board.
|
|
|
Post by Mambo's Here! Look Busy! on Sept 18, 2009 15:45:58 GMT
^ Oh yes I definately agree with that - after having messages from new(ish) members saying they were leaving because of this so called "clique". I think a bit of extra effort to be more accomodating to newer members is all thats needed.
|
|
|
Post by Warped‽‽‽ on Sept 18, 2009 15:59:23 GMT
I've gone a little offtrack. I don't want to argue as if I think these boards should be unmoderated, I'm pretty certain it won't work - but- as you've just said for the most part, things are 'kay. So leave it at that. Keep to enforcing the rules, and that's it. ie. Don't do stuff like prevent people mentioning a thread at all for a week. (#249, lest we forget.) Don't mention the fact you are 'keeping an eye on' a thread. It's kinda patronising for some. I understand why you do it, but on a forum this size and as clued up as we are on what constitutes a good thread or a risqué thread, there is no need for it. Sorry if this sounds kinda harsh or grating but it would remove most of the OMG MODS comments (Which, to be fair there aren't many of anyway) I think. Erk, final point (Promise, I need to pack), it's awesome that you guys are trying to make the effort to make the forum a friendlier and more welcoming place. But don't take it on yourselves to force it that way. Mods job = Enforce forum rules, not try to make everyone happy. It's everyone's responsibility for the whole 'atmosphere' of the place, not just for the mods to pick out older members who aren't as welcoming and warn them for it. (Back to my point that some people just don't get on) Not meaning to sound an unfeeling/judgemental prick here btw
|
|
|
Post by Mambo's Here! Look Busy! on Sept 18, 2009 16:03:27 GMT
Oh no no not at all. You sound fine. Personally, I dont mean to come off as patronising but I would rather talk to members about stuff than outright issue warnings because most people are reasonable but yeah, I can see what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by obsidian on Sept 19, 2009 9:05:30 GMT
Oh yeah, the whole "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT ISSUE 249 FOR A WEEK" thing and with Retro going around going "AHEM I THOOOOUUGHTHOUUGHT I SAID NO ONE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS" almost made me want to leave the forum, and I didn't even give a [censored] about the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Sept 19, 2009 9:31:25 GMT
50 post minimum is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Nam on Sept 19, 2009 10:10:44 GMT
Any minimum is ridiculous, and deter people from joining more than any amount of idiot regulars arguing with them.
I also think the idea of saying to people "ach, it's only [name], they're normally like that" is rubbish, you can't excuse certain individuals dickishness just because it's what thy do. I'm sure if numerous other people suddenly acted like some of the people who get excused because "it's just how they are", would get warned almost immediately. I know if I acted like certain other members do I'd get told off for it.
Maybe instead of having mods be less lenient and not step in to allow new people to experience everyone's reactions, and find out who's going to be jokingly hostile, who's going to be warm and friendly, an who's going to be indifferent, people should stop for a minute and lay off arguing with newbs so aggressively. That way the mods wouldn't find a need to step in in the first place, and this whole issue of mods over modding wouldn't exist.
If there is an issue, then mods should step in, not stepping in and saying "newbie, stop provoking [name], it'll add aggro, and make it worse, so shut up or locks and bans" but maybe wait until it has turned ugly, and then clamp it down with warnings, and locks and if need be, bans. But I really think the biggest issue is that people have a tendancy to act like they act around everyone around the new people if said new person says something the regular disagrees with, and then said regular acts in a way the new way is somehow expected to know isn't a personal attack, despite it being interpretable as such.
And no, this isn't a dig at anyone specific. However, if you've read this and think "he's on about me here," then maybe it's a case that you're aware that you act in such an unsavoury manner, and rather reply like I'm having a go at you, have a think about what I've said and see if you can adjust why you think I think you're coming across as hostile.
Not that the mods are innocent here either. I gotta admit there has been some instances of mods getting in with ban threats to soon. Mod powers are to be used, as I see it anyway, if a thread gets violent, if a thread is a clone, if a member is overtly hostile, if a member tries to do something they shouldn't (e.g chovi). They shouldn't pre-empt these things, as that's like stopping any car from going anywhere, just because there's a statistical chance it could run a toddler over. Just because a thread could get ugly doesn't mean it will, and you should really only act on it if it does, not before.
But yeah, nobody will take heed of these points, and I'll prolly cause a bit of annoyance in saying this, but there's my opinion on what's going on, and why this thread even exists, when this is the sort of thing that good modding, and correct behaviour would've avoided.
[/two cents]
|
|
RS
Big Time Boomer
Allo.
Posts: 248
|
Post by RS on Sept 19, 2009 10:23:51 GMT
I was just coming in here to say that the mod stuff here is surprisingly good, but then I read about minimum posts and things.
Moderation should be:
Problem sorting Topic moving/locking Nuisance banning
In SENSIBLE moderation.
AND NOTHING ELSE.
|
|
|
Post by Rory. on Sept 19, 2009 10:43:24 GMT
Just want to add about the "50 posts" thing turning new members off, it entirely depends on their standpoint, I believe the 50 posts thing was implemented when I joined, and I was more than happy to try for 50 so I could access the rest of the boards. But then again I can see why some people'd be like "50 posts, screw dat". Though I can see how it would help warm people into the environment, but, echoing already said things, I can't see it being a great idea. /no addition to the thread at all.
|
|
|
Post by Baron Canier on Sept 19, 2009 10:57:25 GMT
50 post minimum is ridiculous. This. I doubt new members could be bothered with the hassle of having to sit around building up their post count before they could access the entire forum: they'll just say "[censored] this" and go somewhere else. This is the internet, after all. Instant gratification and all that jazz. Oh yeah, the whole "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT ISSUE 249 FOR A WEEK" thing and with Retro going around going "AHEM I THOOOOUUGHTHOUUGHT I SAID NO ONE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS" almost made me want to leave the forum, and I didn't even give a [censored] about the issue. Oh god, yes. On a related note: just how large is the current mod team, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Mambo's Here! Look Busy! on Sept 19, 2009 11:00:33 GMT
50 post minimum is ridiculous. (perhaps make it 25 posts, as 50 could be a bit daunting to new people). It gives people time to get used to people in a smaller environment. Just thought I would point that out. ;D Anyways Nam, I think your point that excusing people's posts to newer members that "thats just how they are" is part of the clique problem. I agree that just taking a step back before posting when discussing or arguing your case (and by argue I mean debate not getting into hissyfits) is probably all that is needed to make the forum seem less daunting to new members. And yes, I agree thats not for mods to enforce but for everyone to consider. I have to disagree with the comment that a mod has threatened to ban someone on the open forum - I don't recall ever seeing that. What I do remember is a warning on the new #249 thread that the mods would be watching it, which is what we should be doing anyway! In the past, Im sure announcements have been made when someone has been banned but I'm very doubtful "we will ban you..." has been used. There hasn't been cause to threaten anyone with a ban, recently anyway IIRC.
|
|