Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

I didn't say that people in FG&RP show any direct prejudice except for this sort of ingroup/outgroup mentality hovering around "Finally..." in general. It's not like I think they're forming angry mobs and storming the castles of the people who do not visit that forum.

This is getting a bit out of hand, so I'm going to try to stop responding to anything that doesn't bring up a point that hasn't been brought up yet. There's a lot more here to discuss than my comments on a single board, or, for that matter, my comments in general.

[Phmcw]

Beside, part of /b/ is here, and you occasionally have a df thread on /b/.
Hell did you look the encyclopeadia dramaticae's article of df ?

here is Toady post :

This is becoming a problem for me. Giant images and one-word posts have a way of irritating a large segment of the people here and are on the road to the total degeneracy that lead to the creation of the different boards in the first place.  If something made you happy/sad today, you should talk about that.  I've said this before, in these threads, and if you guys continue to ignore my attempts to keep this place in some kind of working order, I'm going to have to shut them down

He complain about gigantic image that are a nuisance for the readability of the thread , the time of loading of the page and an unnecessary charge for the server, and of useless one word post.
It is a calm and reasonable reaction to the two most spammy thread of GD. 

... five page of argument later we're at "we should close entire part of the forum because they attract the wrong kind of poeple".
I think overreaction is somehow involved.

[Caesar]

Perhaps we ought to report the first post. Perhaps we would not.
I personally have not really found that much trouble within the forums, but then again I do tend to mostly lurk and stick to threads I actively monitor.

[Cheese]

Yes, let us end the discussion of FG&RP. The matter of moderators should perhaps still be discussed though, it's a valid point.

[Lord Shonus]

I have a suggestion to the original problem, if possible: Give thread creators the power to delete the posts of other people in their thread (replacing it with "this topic has been deleted by topic moderator" or even to lock a topic for a specific user. Abuse of this power is unlikely, since nobody who overuses it is likely to draw much conversation.

[G-Flex]

... five page of argument later we're at "we should close entire part of the forum because they attract the wrong kind of poeple".
I think overreaction is somehow involved.

This is exactly what I mean when I say I want to stop responding to things that I've already responded to. Sigh.

Seriously, it would be nice if people would read before replying.

Last time I'm reiterating anything: My post had absolutely nothing to do with Toady's recent post. I've been wanting to email Toady about these things for a few days, but then Retro told me he had this thread. I am not reacting to Toady posting in those other threads.

I have a suggestion to the original problem, if possible: Give thread creators the power to delete the posts of other people in their thread (replacing it with "this topic has been deleted by topic moderator" or even to lock a topic for a specific user. Abuse of this power is unlikely, since nobody who overuses it is likely to draw much conversation.

Abuse of this power is actually quite likely, as people (and loose groups of people) will use it to draw conversation from certain people or shun certain others as they please. I personally think this is a bad enough idea that I don't have to worry about it being taken seriously.

[Darkone]

Compare the first five pages of GD with the last five. That's all that needs to be said about degeneracy, really.

[Retro]

I have a suggestion to the original problem, if possible: Give thread creators the power to delete the posts of other people in their thread (replacing it with "this topic has been deleted by topic moderator" or even to lock a topic for a specific user. Abuse of this power is unlikely, since nobody who overuses it is likely to draw much conversation.

It could hypothetically work - but at the same time, deleting a post would remove the content and thus the ability for others to see whether it was a fair removal or not. I think some mods would help more and have a much better chance of working out.

As a side note, the reason I suggested three mods was because one only has his own perspective to rely on, if there was a disagreement between two it would be difficult to overcome, and three would be able to balance with any sort of disagreement they might come to via 2/3 majority.

[Zangi]

On the idea of moderators: I'd personally find a dislike to it, but it could be quite good for the forums. My dislike would be because of various bad things that could happen that have previously been discussed and that the moderators would probably become sort of 'Forum Gods' and not like we love the Tarns for developing DF and being so awesome to the community since they'd be full-time members of the community aswell. I hate it when you get forums where the moderators word being law means that your opinion in a discussion is suddenly overruled by the moderator challenging it and everybody suddenly siding with them. That might not necessarily happen here since we all have a pretty high degree of intelligence.

Partial solutions it to mitigate fallout potential:
1) No delete post/thread powers.
2) No individual banning powers.  (Either majority mod consensus or Tarn decision. De-mod worthy if they take it into their own hands.)
3) Have thread locking powers.
4) Can receive Reports and respond to them.  (Telling people to stop doing wrong, lock thread and/or dismissing it as a frivolous report.) 
5) Mods having a hand in the issue/discussion of a Report should not moderate it.  De-mod worthy.
6) Laissez-faire is the way to go.


Right now, lot of potential reporters are stopped by the stigma of: If Toady has to moderate this, he has to take time out of DF.

[Cheese]

Perhaps once people reach so many posts, and all of their posts are of a certain quality they gain some sort of moderation power, like more control over their own threads with the ability to delete posts. It could still be abused though, but if it were manually handed out by the Adams or a few appointed moderators it could be limited to those trusted to not show prejudice.

[Zangi]

On post Deleting:
Seriously, deletions should be left up to only the Tarns Brothers.

Otherwise, it just serves to be abused and/or as fuel for mod torching.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, I have to agree with Zangi. Being able to remove posts altogether is the second most potentially orwellian action one can take in a forum, and handing that over to anyone but the Adams Brothers is just asking for trouble.

[Retro]

I would agree that only the Adams should be allowed to delete things, even with mods. It keeps everyone accountable, and if there's really a need to by a mod, they can let one of the higher-ups know.

[G-Flex]

Perhaps once people reach so many posts, and all of their posts are of a certain quality they gain some sort of moderation power, like more control over their own threads with the ability to delete posts. It could still be abused though, but if it were manually handed out by the Tarns or a few appointed moderators it could be limited to those trusted to not show prejudice.

Moderators should not be chosen by what amounts to a popular vote.

[lordnincompoop]

Perhaps once people reach so many posts, and all of their posts are of a certain quality they gain some sort of moderation power, like more control over their own threads with the ability to delete posts. It could still be abused though, but if it were manually handed out by the Tarns or a few appointed moderators it could be limited to those trusted to not show prejudice.

If this were automatic, it would be immensely bad. Not only does an auto-op system make for relatively easy power grabs, not all top-posters are good mods. It will result in piles of bad moderation, and that's one thing we don't want.

Manually, this is simply electing moderators under a different name.

Personally I'd dislike it if post count were a criterion in moderator picking, because even though those people tend to be more active it's not a reliable metric to use, and it'll simply encourage e-peen waving and usage of it as a status symbol, amongst other issues.

Perhaps once people reach so many posts, and all of their posts are of a certain quality they gain some sort of moderation power, like more control over their own threads with the ability to delete posts. It could still be abused though, but if it were manually handed out by the Tarns or a few appointed moderators it could be limited to those trusted to not show prejudice.

Moderators should not be chosen by what amounts to a popular vote.

This is a better way to do it, though not the best. Moderators should be picked for their ability to moderate, not their popularity or post count. They should be level-headed, intelligent, thoughtful, impartial, empathetic and active. That's pretty much all that matters.

I would agree that only the Tarns should be allowed to delete things, even with mods. It keeps everyone accountable, and if there's really a need to by a mod, they can let one of the higher-ups know.

I agree with this also. Another method would be to set up a Mod Reports board for them to post in with a, well, report of what they did. A combination of both would be neat.