| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dread Phirate YYS
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
Location: Tucson, Arizona |
0.  Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 4:14 pm Post subject: Something I'm wondering (General rules) |
 |
|
This is purely for the mods to reply to since the opinion on this matter as related to the general poster is kinda bunk. Spike recently closed a thread where within it was the usual "OMG lock this thread" post, to which I replied "The mods don't need your help doing their job" to which Spike replied "And we don't need you jumping in and saying stuff like that blah blah blah". Now, my whole thing when on the forums is simply to have a general concern for the rules and regs as they've either been stated or put out to the general public for them to abide by, so when I see someone who blatantly puts a "Lock this thread" post for example my first thought in my mind is "It's been said time and time again, asking for a thread to be locked when you didn't make it is postwhorific. Why are you doing it?" to which I calmly remind the poster that that isn't his job to decide, it's the mods. In that same arguement you could say that it's not my job to remind them either, it's the mods, but as a frequent poster of the site and practically knowing who's got brains and who's got beans-and-franks in their noggins I kinda feel obligated to say something when, like I said, the rules are right there and well known. There are a few others who do the same thing like EBT on occassion. My question is simple, is it not right to have a general concern about the content of the site and voice that concern when the tone for voicing is not flaiming, flamebait, or degrading in anyway other then voicing the general rules?
I'm not looking to get flamed or down-talked by mods so if you're going to take that tone please don't bother posting. I'm serious about this and I want a serious opinion.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spike
Administrator
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Location: Denver |
| 1. Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This thread wrote: |
which I calmly remind the poster that that isn't his job to decide |
| This thread wrote: |
My question is simple, is it not right to have a general concern about the content of the site and voice that concern when the tone for voicing is not flaiming, flamebait, or degrading in anyway other then voicing the general rules? |
| The other thread wrote: |
Well it certainly will now with you already stereotyping the thread topic and asking for a lock in the first post. Speaking of which, the Mods don't need your help doing their job so can the "OMG OMG!! LOCKZOR TEH THREAD" speak, kay? |
To me, your response was more "sarcastic" than it was "calm." It came across to me more as wanting to jump on someone than generally trying to voice your concern. That may not have been your intention, but that's how it came across to me. So my first point would be that if anyone is going to say something publicly, they should be very careful about their wording.
| Quote: |
like I said, the rules are right there and well known. |
I think that in this case, the rules weren't wholly well known. I said something in the AIM thread about religion threads, but in this case it wasn't as well known as, say, "don't ask for MP3s."
As you pointed out, in the same argument it isn't your job to point things out like this. I understand that you (and others) get tired of people posting "OMG THIS NEEDS A LOCK." I get tired of it too. But here's the most annoying thing I see in a thread:
The Original Poster creates the thread. Let's say it's a thread about Iraq. Now, hypothetically, let's say that recently a few Iraq threads have been locked and a mod or two have said "Let's stop with the whole Iraq thing for a little bit" because it has been made evident that people on the boards can't talk about Iraq without having a flamewar.
So the OP makes the thread. Then someone says "This needs to be locked." Than another person comes in and says "We don't need you to tell people that it's going to be locked. It's obvious that it will be." Then someone else says "All of you shut up you wannabe mods." Then a mod comes in and locks it.
Now, when I look at a thread like that, I see the original post that deserves a lock. Then I see three posts that bumped a thread that deserved to be locked. What if those three people didn't say anything? What if they just let it slide and assumed that the mod would deal with it? One of two things would happen. Either the mod would point out the rules and how it deserves to be locked, or it would die on its own. But with people posting all sorts of extra things, it ensures that the thread will stay in view (which I guess will point out to the mod that it needs to be locked, but that's about the only good that comes out of it). To me, it seems like more harm than good will come out of posting things like that.
So what can concerned users do? Well, a few things. First, you could PM a moderator about the thread. This will alert the moderator about the thread and how it needs to be locked. That way, the mod can lock the thread and deal with what needs to be done, but people don't bicker back and forth. Two, you could PM the user and say something nice like "Hey, maybe you didn't know about this, but the mods aren't allowing Iraq threads right now, so it will be locked." Or if someone else posts a "this is going to get locked" reply, then you can PM that person and explain what I have said before (about needlessly bumping a thread, etc etc).
I (and the other mods) constantly tell people that they can always PM us with issues. And yet I rarely get PMs with threads that need to be locked. Maybe other mods do, I don't know. But I see a lot more people spending their time making sure that everyone sees they're saying "This needs to be locked" than I see people contacting a moderator about it (although they could be doing both). The explanation of not wanting to be a "tattle tale" doesn't make sense, because no one but the mod will know, and I'm much more appreciative of someone PMing me than seeing someone say "This is SO going to get locked" in the thread.
So, my point is that if you're concerned, there are other things that you can do, such as PMing a moderator or PMing the user who broke the rules if you're concerned about the forums. This way you can voice your concern, but you don't have all of the negative consequences that can arise.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IguanaGrrl
Staff Member
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA |
| 2. Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*points up*
What he said x 500,000,000 times.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dread Phirate YYS
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
Location: Tucson, Arizona |
| 3. Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand the whole PM thing, but I gave up on that a while ago when I had a PM in my outgoing box sitting there for about a month and a half to I think it was you Spike about a thread that needed to be locked. The thread eventually died but the PM was still there. Also, on occasion I PM MSD with complaints and the same thing happens. He's since gotten better at checking pms though.  That's the thing though, when the PM system doesn't work usually posters feel the need to take things into their hands, then they get points for flamebaiting or the verbal-bitchslap from a mod (Which nobody likes by the way when you degrade them then close the conversation, believe me). But I'm glad you actually took the time to post a guidline about how to deal with stuff like this. Perhaps a sticky so it's just there?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spike
Administrator
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Location: Denver |
| 4. Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yin-Yang Soul (YYS) wrote: | | I understand the whole PM thing, but I gave up on that a while ago when I had a PM in my outgoing box sitting there for about a month and a half to I think it was you Spike about a thread that needed to be locked. The thread eventually died but the PM was still there. Also, on occasion I PM MSD with complaints and the same thing happens. He's since gotten better at checking pms though. That's the thing though, when the PM system doesn't work usually posters feel the need to take things into their hands, then they get points for flamebaiting or the verbal-bitchslap from a mod (Which nobody likes by the way when you degrade them then close the conversation, believe me). But I'm glad you actually took the time to post a guidline about how to deal with stuff like this. Perhaps a sticky so it's just there? |
That may have been when I was gone for like 3 months But it may have also been something with the PM system, because I have like 6 PMs in my outbox, and I know at least 3 of them have been viewed, because they were replied to. I may have seen the PM when I came back, and the thread was so dead it would have been bad to have bumped it just to lock it. Or something like that.
Anyways, maybe there's a way we could implement some kind of flag system a la GameFAQs (but not one that sucks). For example, you can only flag 2-3 threads per day or something, and no matter what it tells the moderators who submitted the questionable thread, so if it's people abusing it we can warn them. That would also solve the problem of PMing a moderator who may not be around/online. If it went to a system that all mods could view and deal with then it wouldn't be a problem.
As for stickying it, it gives me the idea of trying to write a larger "guide" of sorts. I'll include most of this and then either make it a sticky here and link it in my sig or something.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
| 5. Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spike wrote: | | Anyways, maybe there's a way we could implement some kind of flag system a la GameFAQs (but not one that sucks). For example, you can only flag 2-3 threads per day or something, and no matter what it tells the moderators who submitted the questionable thread, so if it's people abusing it we can warn them. That would also solve the problem of PMing a moderator who may not be around/online. If it went to a system that all mods could view and deal with then it wouldn't be a problem. |
I'll spare you the details and just state:
phpBB2.2
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 6. Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right on cue, Jason. 
Also, while it's not linked on the main headers, you can always use this:
http://www.ddrfreak.com/phpBB2/viewonline.php
This page shows who's online and publicly-viewable, including moderators. If a thread needs to be locked, you can PM one of us there to let us know. If the person you contact isn't a Global Mod, then that person will come find one of us to do it.
_________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IguanaGrrl
Staff Member
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA |
| 7. Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cutriss wrote: | | If the person you contact isn't a Global Mod, then that person will come find one of us to do it. |
Umm... everyone is global. We made that change several months back.
(Psst.. look back a few pages in the mod forum. )
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P-Chan
Staff Member
Joined: 11 Mar 2002
Location: Chihuahua,Chih. México |
| 8. Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VxJasonxV wrote: | | Spike wrote: | | Anyways, maybe there's a way we could implement some kind of flag system a la GameFAQs (but not one that sucks). For example, you can only flag 2-3 threads per day or something, and no matter what it tells the moderators who submitted the questionable thread, so if it's people abusing it we can warn them. That would also solve the problem of PMing a moderator who may not be around/online. If it went to a system that all mods could view and deal with then it wouldn't be a problem. |
I'll spare you the details and just state:
phpBB2.2 |
I wanna see who´s gonna migrate all of the custom stuff we have
not that I´d dislike having something like that flagging system... that way, us, unknown mods, would have a little more things to do and the whole boards would have a faster response
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
| 9. Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well P-Chan... you saw him in LA, and you're talking to him now. 
The good thing is, a lot of my work will be already done for me (XD), and will involve very minor tweaks. But certain things (banlist integration, etc.) may require a bit more work... I don't even know how much in the end, since phpBB2.2 is always changing and such, seeing as it's not finished.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 10. Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IguanaGrrl wrote: | | Cutriss wrote: | | If the person you contact isn't a Global Mod, then that person will come find one of us to do it. |
Umm... everyone is global. We made that change several months back.
(Psst.. look back a few pages in the mod forum. ) |
That was me from the past, time-traveling to the future to make that post, to prevent a race of master-chickens from taking over the forums.
_________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IguanaGrrl
Staff Member
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA |
| 11. Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cutriss wrote: | | That was me from the past, time-traveling to the future to make that post, to prevent a race of master-chickens from taking over the forums. |
Aww, but I like chickens. I would have had fun with that.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Falling/Fading/LostItAll
Trick Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Location: The Wired |
| 12. Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
OMG THIS NEEDS A LOCK
xD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Dogg
Administrator
Joined: 16 Jan 2002
Location: Sunnyvale, CA |
| 13. Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There is no FORK! wrote: | OMG THIS NEEDS A LOCK
xD |
OMG YOU NEED A WARN
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hulk
Trick Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Location: I'd like to solve the puzzle... |
| 14. Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question, if you check "Remember me" when logging in, and you close the window, would it still say that you're online on the "View Who Is Online" page?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 15. Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PabloElton of SMITE! wrote: | | I have a question, if you check "Remember me" when logging in, and you close the window, would it still say that you're online on the "View Who Is Online" page? |
In most cases, no. viewonline.php is based on actual activity on the boards. "Remember me" just cookies you. viewonline.php tracks your movement by what viewforum.php/viewtopic.php/posting.php/etc requests you make.
_________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
