First goog point: I agree that there is no way to motivate people to care about their posts if they do not want to, but that doesn't say anything about people who don't want to care, but what about the people who don't know how to care? There are lots of people who want to be accepted into the community, but are too immature to formulate a sensical post? Punishment isn't always needed for some cases, also; they can simply be handled by gentle correction. Sometimes that in itself is an unintended punishment, though.
Second point: Maybe it was worded incorrectly, but here's another way of saying it: "We think the administration doesn't care for forum's community enough to keep people mature". If it sounds unreasonable, then let it be that.
Third point: We posted this here so everyone would have a chance to see it. I don't see a problem with that. Also, I, at least, said the video was terrible, but maybe you didn't listen.
Fourth point: Maybe we want a little more feedback, though. All we get is the message telling us to wait for a moderator to judge it.
Fifth point: The talking bit is for the senseless people. I'm sorry to have grouped them together if it troubled you.
Sixth point: I did not say your helpful posts were disrespectful. Your behavior in the chat is what annoys us. A specific example, if you want one, is what you said before Blox kicked you, "<@googoogjoob> gangster muk will put a cap in your ass". I think that's disrespectful enough. :/
Seventh point: Inactive based on the problems we see in the forum. I'm sorry if it's terribly inaccurate, but I thought I already admitted it might be.
Regarding LPChip: I never disrespected his authority. We simply said that he could use some help.
Regarding Paula: Sure, the censorship deal was a jest, but it wasn't taken down after people started complaining. Also, the button deal is nice, but it's more of a subject of format rather than content. I'm sorry for not noticing that and putting it in the original post.
Regarding Blox: I know it is often regarded as stupid, but we were not asking for your opinion on the matter.
Regarding #niffchat: Yes, but I believe the rules are claimed to be the same.
Regarding moderation in general: Of course no moderation is needed based on your current standards of moderation. Perhaps we would like some new standards. Eh, you'll just bash me for saying that, too.
Regarding Blox: I know it is often regarded as stupid, but we were not asking for your opinion on the matter.Whoa, man. You can feel the ice from here. Somethin' personal maybe?
@Goog: I haven't seen this video, but if you're going to say it's funny, possibly insulting a few people, try to keep it away from this forum. You do a decent job moderating, but a video like that with people aged as they are on this forum... it could influence them (not a good chance, but still), and they may think that people like that. We also have guests, and we don't know what age some of them are. If they grow up thinking people laugh at things like 9/11 happening...
@Goog: I haven't seen this video, but if you're going to say it's funny, possibly insulting a few people, try to keep it away from this forum. You do a decent job moderating, but a video like that with people aged as they are on this forum... it could influence them (not a good chance, but still), and they may think that people like that. We also have guests, and we don't know what age some of them are. If they grow up thinking people laugh at things like 9/11 happening...
The funny part of the video wasn't the horrific events in it, but rather the juxtaposition of these horrific events with Yakety Sax.
* An Administrator can overrule a moderator. If a dispute becomes big, and a moderator says something, an admin can still overrule that if it is deemed necessary.
This shouldn't need to happen, period. If it does, it speaks poorly for both the moderators and the administration that chose them.
* Don't post random things in a topic. Do not post something that is completely irrelevant to that topic. This is being seen as not caring for that person or their subject. Doing so can result in a deletion of that post without warning whatsoever.
I've seen this happen a few times and I haven't seen any action taken.
* Don't do back-seat moderating. If you see that someone has done something that you think is against the rules, please use the "Report to moderator"-button. Sometimes people can sound somewhat unfriendly when they tell others what not to do and sometimes they're wrong. A moderator will look into it and make a decision.
I really hate it when forums add a rule against "back-seat moderating." If someone's breaking the rules, then I can't tell them they're breaking the rules without breaking the rules myself? I'm sorry, but that's just silly!
* Don't edit your post to change the subject. If you started a topic, and the questions has been answered which makes the topic useless, do not alter your post even if it's the first post, so you can bend the topic. Create a new topic instead and optionally link to the current to explain your posting.
Has this ever actually happened?
* Don't add text to your post that is unreadable on purpose (unless its part of a forumgame's rules). This includes small text (like 6 px and smaller), and different colors that match the background color. If you don't want something to be easily read, use a spoilertag. Unreadable text will be removed on sight without warning.
* Do not use formatting BCC tags that aren't necessary in a post. When you apply formatting tags, like color, bold, size, etc... be sure that it adds value to the text you're applying it to. That means, if you removed the formatting, the goal wouldn't be met anymore. Do note: adding color, and fontsize changes, and bold usually is overkill. Clarification doesn't need alot of tags, people will read it anyways.
If you don't want people to use these features, DISABLE THEM! Paula herself currently has a violation of the first one in her own SIGNATURE.
* Don't make your signature higher than 200px. Usually a small post (which are most) is about 100 px big. Having a signature that is way bigger makes things unnecessary large. You can use [ table ] and [ tr ] [ td ] tags to put things next to eachother so it doesn't become that large vertically. Also the spoilertag may assist you here.
I have seen a number of violations of this, most of which have been ignored, but it is understandably annoying to have to monitor something as temporary as a signature. And nobody seems to mind, including me.
Like I said, I didn't see the video, so I wouldn't know. I'm don't mean to imply anything about you or anything, I was just trying to put in my thoughts on it. If the video is funny, but it's not because of the 9/11 part, then that's ok (as long as the humor is appropriate, again, I have yet to see it, so I don't know). Sorry if it was (unintentionally) rude of me to say.
I honestly think that the rules for the forum should also apply to the chat, if they don't already, and that moderators should act the same as they do on the forum. And the in beds are getting old, Goog.
Like I said, I didn't see the video, so I wouldn't know. I'm don't mean to imply anything about you or anything, I was just trying to put in my thoughts on it. If the video is funny, but it's not because of the 9/11 part, then that's ok (as long as the humor is appropriate, again, I have yet to see it, so I don't know). Sorry if it was (unintentionally) rude of me to say.
's cool.
...but wouldn't you think twice before posting something that controversial in the chat? Just sounds like common sense to me.
* Be friendly towards everyone. Regardless what other people say to you, I'd like to ask you to be friendly whereever possible. It will make this forum a nice place to be. :)I have seen it enforced. Sometimes it is necessary to do so, even on this forum.
This is never enforced, but I'm not sure it needs to be. Everyone here is fairly nice even when they're mean.
* Respect everyone's opinion. Everyone has the right to have their opinion. If you don't agree with someone, then it's okay to say what your opinion is as long as you repect theirs.Agreed.
I honestly don't think this needs to be seperate from the first rule. It doesn't even seem like a real rule.
* Do not curse using bad words. It is not allowed to excessively curse using bad words, particulary those that are aimed towards other people. You can say "damn" or "shit" when you do something wrong etc, but not: "you are a @#$##$^#".You probably haven't seen it enforced because those posts get deleted instantly without warnings. 9_9
This strikes me as an odd rule as the usual reason for avoiding swearing is to avoid offending the parents of younger forumers. Furthermore, I have never seen this enforced.
* Do not provoke a conflict that could lead to cursing. Do not say something where your aim is to upset the other person. That person could get mad, and start to curse (see above point).Newbs might not know what trolling means. I think the wording is fine.
"Do not do X, or someone might violate that other rule." This rule is poorly phrased; it should just say "no trolling" and leave it at that. But I have no particular complaints about this rule other than its wording.
* An Administrator can overrule a moderator. If a dispute becomes big, and a moderator says something, an admin can still overrule that if it is deemed necessary.I believe this is a "just in case" rule. If it does happen, its good to have rules for it.
This shouldn't need to happen, period. If it does, it speaks poorly for both the moderators and the administration that chose them.
* Don't post things that are obviously not suitable for children. This forum is visited by a lot of young people, so please respect that fact and don't post things that can be disturbing for children. If you post something which we can't allow in this forum out of concern for our younger visitors, your post may be altered/removed without warning.I remember someone posting a ks level with porn in it. It got deleted.
I don't believe this rule has ever been enforced, but it's never needed to be - unless you count strong language as being unsuitable for children (see comment on that rule).
* Don't post random things in a topic. Do not post something that is completely irrelevant to that topic. This is being seen as not caring for that person or their subject. Doing so can result in a deletion of that post without warning whatsoever.I have seen action maybe once, but yeah, its not really enough.
I've seen this happen a few times and I haven't seen any action taken.
* Don't do back-seat moderating. If you see that someone has done something that you think is against the rules, please use the "Report to moderator"-button. Sometimes people can sound somewhat unfriendly when they tell others what not to do and sometimes they're wrong. A moderator will look into it and make a decision.You'd be breaking the rules anyways by doing that, since backseat modding=Offtopic. I think this is just here to make things more clear.
I really hate it when forums add a rule against "back-seat moderating." If someone's breaking the rules, then I can't tell them they're breaking the rules without breaking the rules myself? I'm sorry, but that's just silly!
* Don't edit your post to change the subject. If you started a topic, and the questions has been answered which makes the topic useless, do not alter your post even if it's the first post, so you can bend the topic. Create a new topic instead and optionally link to the current to explain your posting.I think it happened once in a forum game on the old forum, and the user who did it never posted again.
Has this ever actually happened?
* Don't post links referring to the old forum. Because it will not stay online forever, please don't add links referring to the old broken forum to your posts. If you want to "save" things that were said there, copy & paste/quote from it.Agreed. Why exactly can't we post links to the old forum? Because they will be useless when the forum is taken down? That makes no sense at all.
I still think this is stupid. It is very annoying to have to quote everything, and a lot of new people have asked for links to the old forum and have been told "oh, well, we're not allowed to give you one, but you can just replace "forum" with "forum2" and guess the rest!"
And isn't it a bit ironic that you, yourself, are complaining about our complaints? ;)
Good example of rule violations.
I didn't think it was particularly controversial, especially as it'd been posted before.
The funny part of the video wasn't the horrific events in it, but rather the juxtaposition of these horrific events with Yakety Sax.Which is still horrible, disrespectful, and not appropriate for the chat, in my opinion. As for having posted before, it doesn't change the content, which as you see, may make people question the intentions of such content.
"In bed" use (by all users) has declined sharply since this time last year.
"BloxMaster: It would be nice if BloxMaster is promoted; as he is a very active part of the forum, helps with people's problems, knows what is fair and what is unfair, and what should and shouldn't be allowed. (this was an anonymous agreement)"
"Mr. Monkey, Kasran, BloxMaster, Dib, Sabata, chipset, and EarthBound015"
Sure, anonymous. Mods are chosen by the admins. Being a mod isn't just a popularity contest. Asking to be a mod is very, very stupid. If the admins decide we need a new mod, a new mod will be instated.
How do you propose to achieve a "more open administration"? I really cannot think of anything, and I'm not even sure what you mean by "open".
Quote* Don't post things that are obviously not suitable for children. This forum is visited by a lot of young people, so please respect that fact and don't post things that can be disturbing for children. If you post something which we can't allow in this forum out of concern for our younger visitors, your post may be altered/removed without warning.I remember someone posting a ks level with porn in it. It got deleted.
I don't believe this rule has ever been enforced, but it's never needed to be - unless you count strong language as being unsuitable for children (see comment on that rule).
That was a banme. I don't think that really counts.Oh, right. X)
I didn't think it was particularly controversial, especially as it'd been posted before.The funny part of the video wasn't the horrific events in it, but rather the juxtaposition of these horrific events with Yakety Sax.Which is still horrible, disrespectful, and not appropriate for the chat, in my opinion. As for having posted before, it doesn't change the content, which as you see, may make people question the intentions of such content.
"In bed" use (by all users) has declined sharply since this time last year.
Seems pretty frequent to me, and you are the one who uses it.
"BloxMaster: It would be nice if BloxMaster is promoted; as he is a very active part of the forum, helps with people's problems, knows what is fair and what is unfair, and what should and shouldn't be allowed. (this was an anonymous agreement)"
"Mr. Monkey, Kasran, BloxMaster, Dib, Sabata, chipset, and EarthBound015"
Sure, anonymous. Mods are chosen by the admins. Being a mod isn't just a popularity contest. Asking to be a mod is very, very stupid. If the admins decide we need a new mod, a new mod will be instated.
Whether you believe me or not, I honestly didn't make that section. I think we also know that being a mod doesn't mean being 'popular' as you put it. As for asking, it shouldn't be a dumb idea, but this forum seems to have a hard time listening when you ask for something. I also think the 'if the admins decide' plays a hand in the 'hard time listening when you ask for something'. The fact of the matter is, that you should be able to ask (like we are doing) and not be subject to a bashing, just because someone didn't agree with the request. For example, this topic seems to be about defending points, instead of people actually thinking about what we said, and how we should be allowed to voice our very reasonable opinions.
How do you propose to achieve a "more open administration"? I really cannot think of anything, and I'm not even sure what you mean by "open".
Administration that isn't so uptight. One with feedback and allows input from users. You could say it is like this now, but it really isn't.
Spoiler: RELEVANT LOG. (click to show/hide)
Looking at the logs, I see no serious objections at the time. Even Mr. Monkey's complaint is affected 12 seconds later by his admission that he laughed- and you have to keep in mind the very strong current of sarcasm running through #niffchat, which means that a majority of "D:"s are going to be sarcastic."In bed" use (by all users) has declined sharply since this time last year.
Seems pretty frequent to me, and you are the one who uses it.
Looking over my logs of the past week, I find seven uses of "in bed" in as many days. (And not all by me.) An average of one use per day is very low compared to the old average of perhaps 20 per day.
BTW, I think the arcade and the forumgames board are silly. They seem to shift the focus away from the true point of the forum. People (and the admins) focus more on those (and moderating those sections) than they do on the other sections.
goog says in bed like crazy when he can,
Looking over my logs of the past week, I find seven uses of "in bed" in as many days. (And not all by me.) An average of one use per day is very low compared to the old average of perhaps 20 per day.
and he seems to be staying on as a mod only because for some reason he stays up when the other mods are sleeping(that's how he became mod in the first place).
A teensy bit off topic, but could someone explain where 'in bed' came from? It's apparantly an old in-joke. I would like to know its meaning. :)
Also, "in bed" is most likely my fault. It is a plague I bring to every forum I go to. I don't think it fair to blame googoogjoob for saying it once a day.
With all due respect, it is simply barking mad to think that you don't overuse that phrase, and many other relatively inappropriate euphemisms that could be interpreted as possibly (but perhaps not definitely by the book) breaking the rule "Don't post things that are obviously not suitable for children." as per the [rules/].
goog says in bed like crazy when he can,
I don't use it "like crazy" at all.
With all due respect, it is simply barking mad to think that you don't overuse that phrase...
But, even though the (essentially nonexistent) rules of the chat are supposed to be more free than the rules of the forum, it is still quite discouraging to see a moderator stoop down to such immaturity.
if paula kicks people for saying in bed, then even once a month is too much.
Wut. :|
What has this got to do with anything? So goog says "in bed" like four times a week in #niffchat. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that as "obviously not suitable for children", or "breaking the rules".
How is the forum going to become better if he stops?
This sort of thing causes me to think that certain people are looking for any excuse to put googoogjoob and other moderators down.
It's because he's setting an example that it's okay to do such things.He is setting the example that it is okay to say things like "in bed" a few times a week to joke?
It is illogical (and don't say "that is subjective") to think that I would target after one staff member just for kicks. It's because he's setting an example that it's okay to do such things. If people get the idea that a staff member thinks it's fine to say things like that, then the newer members will do it, and who knows how far they carry it.
paula has said before that she doesn't like in bed being used at all, so even saying it once is being rude to one of the mods. and lets get back on subject plz and stop with the stupid in bed.
and lets get back on subject plz and stop with the stupid in bed.
Well, with all due respect (once again) you've irritated me. Also, this isn't the first time you've offended/turned off someone blindly: You offended Mr_Monkey and James16 and God knows how many others with that 9/11 rubbish (and countless other incidents in the like). I don't mean to be brash or anything in that manner, but with all honesty, you need to think at least twice before you speak.
I didn't think it was particularly controversial, especially as it'd been posted before.The funny part of the video wasn't the horrific events in it, but rather the juxtaposition of these horrific events with Yakety Sax.Which is still horrible, disrespectful, and not appropriate for the chat, in my opinion. As for having posted before, it doesn't change the content, which as you see, may make people question the intentions of such content.Spoiler: RELEVANT LOG. (click to show/hide)
Looking at the logs, I see no serious objections at the time. Even Mr. Monkey's complaint is affected 12 seconds later by his admission that he laughed- and you have to keep in mind the very strong current of sarcasm running through #niffchat, which means that a majority of "D:"s are going to be sarcastic.
Well, with all due respect (once again) you've irritated me. Also, this isn't the first time you've offended/turned off someone blindly: You offended Mr_Monkey and James16 and God knows how many others with that 9/11 rubbish. I don't mean to be brash or anything in that manner, but with all honesty, you need to think at least twice before you speak.
(in my opinion, which according to KG, is always subjective)
Whoops! This thread is going to be locked for pointlessness.
Quote from: eyeofthetiger1 on August 03, 2009, 11:54:49
oh and this forum game was locked by a admin on SMWcentral.net
Yes, well this won't be any different.
Hey!
I didn't intend to provoke anybody, I stated my position. In exactly the way I simply talk practically all the time. If you think that's too pissy/bitchy, "especially as an admin", then I suppose that I'm just a bad person in your eyes and unsuited for the job. Oh well, I never asked to get it, I never said I was good at it.
Either way, I think it's really provocative to suggest that I (and others) don't think about what is posted.
This post, and its contents, is a collaboration of a number of people (whose names are listed at the top). These people, some of whom were there during the higher points of the older forums, have the general goal of making this forum better, and have several wishes in order for this to happen.
In case these requests are not met within a reasonable time, this topic is locked, or otherwise avoided, these people will not regret leaving with or without hassle on part of the forum.
googoogjoob: googoogjoob is an atrocious chat op who breaks rules and doesn't bother enforcing them. The most visible work he does as a mod is lock threads by the book. He has no respect for anyone, is terribly inactive, mod-wise on the main forums, and a horrible example as a mod. Additionally, he has been de-opped and kicked several times by other operators in the chat for acting inappropriately.
Additionally, we recommend a three-strikes rule for people who break the rules of the community:I agree with it. In my opinoin, it will be the best way.
◦The first strike would be a warning: a reminder that you are breaking the rules. This would be suitable for first-time offenders.
◦The second strike would be a temporary ban; the amount of time of such a ban would depend on the severity of the rule broken.
◦The third strike would be an indefinite ban from the forum and/or #niffchat. This would immediately apply if the rule broken is severe, such as spamming or posting links to items such as commercial MP3s, mortgages, or pornography.