Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 84

Thread: Why is discussion on peoples disciplinary action closed

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Here. We call this place Ohio
    Posts
    2,104

    Default

    While others don't mind at all. It's a personal matter. I understand wanting to protect the innocent (lord knows I am pverly-protective sometimes), sometimes a frank discussion can educate others who may have blinders on.

    This is a forum not an Interpol investigation.

    A lot of what goes on here is frivilous. It's good to see the police-state abolished though, even if that means having to surf through some murky waters.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    You can't phase me with your whack jutsus.
    Posts
    2,333

    Default

    That's true. I think a discussion about rules and infractions could be a healthy thread to have for most forumgoers.

    Obviously I didn't close it, but I can understand the position of closing it. It was partially a discussion, but at the same time it was completely insulting to the person who it was posted about. Maybe it wasn't openly insulting, but it vaguely seemed like people were gloating about a person being banned.

    Maybe that's not why it was closed, but that's definitely not the type of post I'd want to condone. :P

    You've got a way with words, Kemp, you should start a 'good' discussion about it.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Here. We call this place Ohio
    Posts
    2,104

    Default

    Such a discussion would turn into a flame war. "Mods this, mods that." The forum rules lay it all out, but most people don't bother to read them. I haven't. As the record will show, I was informed of the rules one by one.

    As I said, these forums have improved in a short time (let's say less than a two week period - which, coincidentally, is also the length of time for some suspensions.) I don't see a need to revisit what is already posted. However, there is room for discussion.

    What are the ranges for suspensions anyway?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukasai View Post
    That's true. I think a discussion about rules and infractions could be a healthy thread to have for most forumgoers.
    I totally agree. However (and this is a question directed at everyone) is the General Discussion section the right venue?
    I am not a woman

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    You can't phase me with your whack jutsus.
    Posts
    2,333

    Default

    Maybe our forum isn't ready for something like that, then. I don't know. I think the forum as whole (and yes, I mean it all, take that as you will) needs to 'grow' a little, or as you said, improve. I've had faith that it would for a while, and I'm glad that at least a few people see it has, if even a tiny bit.

    I'll stand by it until I can't anymore, even at the risk of sounding like a cheesy idiot.

    And I don't think there's technically a limit on suspension lengths, to be perfectly honest. Scary, right?
    Last edited by Sukasai; 06-07-2009 at 09:20 AM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukasai View Post
    That's true. I think a discussion about rules and infractions could be a healthy thread to have for most forumgoers.
    I agree this would be a good idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kempion View Post
    Such a discussion would turn into a flame war. "Mods this, mods that."
    Maybe the best way to handle that is have a 'guest' Moderator. A disinterested party who's sole function is to moderate that one discussion. Once the discussion is done, the guest moderator is dismissed

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Here. We call this place Ohio
    Posts
    2,104

    Default

    I askked because if I start a thread of this nature, there will have to be enforceable guidelines. As in, trolls, flamers, flamebaiters and the assortment of naysayers who are only in it to attack will all need a vactaion - say, 24 hours. Is that doable? This would keep the disruptions to a minimum.

    To be honest, I don't think there would even be that much participation. Those who want to flame mods/admins will continue to do so. Likewise, those who want to attack UMGE or vent their frustrations will also continue on that course. Rules and infractions are only of interest to those who want to bend hte rules. I should, I have tested the waters when the waters were much rougher.

    The point of a rules/infraction discussion would be two-sided: and advisory side and a challenge side. This establishes a conflict before even commencing. What would be the point then?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    You can't phase me with your whack jutsus.
    Posts
    2,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kempion View Post
    I understand wanting to protect the innocent (lord knows I am pverly-protective sometimes), sometimes a frank discussion can educate others who may have blinders on.
    You almost sound like you're arguing with yourself, here.

    At any rate, I obviously can't make any promises about something like this happening. I was honestly just agreeing with the quote above, to begin with.

    And unfortunately, as you've pointed out, and as I've also agreed with, such a discussion almost seems impossible. I wouldn't mind giving it a shot, but it's not my call. I'm just a 'mall cop'.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukasai View Post
    .....And unfortunately, as you've pointed out, and as I've also agreed with, such a discussion almost seems impossible.....
    Nothing is impossible! It is all a matter how of bad you want it to happen.

    A frank discussion about the rules, how they are applied. No specific cases, no flames, etc. If you want to use a specific case as an example, remove the names.

    A guest moderator, who moderates that one forum. Other mods, would be treated the same as other users, in that one discussion only.

    If this is going to happen, All the current moderator have to agree to the terms.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Here. We call this place Ohio
    Posts
    2,104

    Default

    We've come full circle. The best policy is to have mods who enforce the rules. However, the debate on how rigid said rules are is still open. As things stand now, the enforcement is fine... with some positives and some negatives.

    The queen threads were off-topic most of the time and ourageous at others. Positive. Those posters were enjoying the lively conversations.

    Lack enforecement has also surfaced. For example, the "Dawnseeker, come out and face, talk to us... the protesrors" thread is pure flamebait. DS knows this and won't engage in that discussion. However, a handful of would-be flamers keep bumping the thread. That particular thread should have been closed on first sight. If the OP, or anyone else has a question for DS about his "promise," then they need to go to him privately. This is a matter of respect for all parties concerned, not the least of which is the Evony community. Having such obvious bait sitting there, is a cancer which serves no purpose other than to scare off new players.

    I'm happy with the situation as it is. If, however, it were to regress to its former state, I might have a thing or two to say about that.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •