TV's Frink said:
And maybe change impscum's user title to something embarrassing.
I don't easily get embarrassed. What did you have in mind?
真実
Well, since pretty much everything you post is an embarrassment, I'll have to think about it some.
Leonardo said:
Warbler said:
Leonardo, care to explain just how moderated you think the off topic section should be?
Like the rest of the forum.
Ugh. The rest of the forum is not nearly as entertaining. Given a choice between no moderation and full moderation in off-topic, I'll gladly vote for no moderation.
Warbler said:
TV's Frink said:
Next idea: I choose everyone's user title based on something they've posted.
what would mine be?
*sigh*
As I already said, people should just use ignore option. It provides a sufficient level of moderation ability to each individual user. If you put someone on ignore (to you) it should be virtually the same as if the person was banned.
However, I feel that some individuals in this thread are not satisfied with that and seem to be after some personal revenge for being outwitted in some petty arguments.
A very similar behaviour was displayed in The Disregard Darth Id Pledge thread, where particular individuals were not satisfied by simply ignoring a target person, but tried to encourage others to do so too.
真実
Quit being dramatic. If revenge were my intent I'd have made a thread for you. My point is merely our own moderation is necessary if it doesn't come from above, and by so doing I thought a small scale ban might illustrate how unpopular certain actions are.
darth_ender said:
Quit being dramatic. If revenge were my intent I'd have made a thread for you. My point is merely our own moderation is necessary if it doesn't come from above, and by so doing I thought a small scale ban might illustrate how unpopular certain actions are.
I am not being dramatic. I am just being reasonable.
And my point is that "own moderation" is already available within the scope of ignore list. I believe that major offenders (such as spammers) are already being banned even within the "Off Topic" section.
真実
imperialscum said:
I feel that some individuals in this thread are not satisfied with that and seem to be after some personal revenge for being outwitted in some petty arguments.
I think I just found your new user title.
TV's Frink said:
imperialscum said:
. . . for being outwitted in some petty arguments.
LOL!!
Leonardo said:
Warbler said:
Leonardo, care to explain just how moderated you think the off topic section should be?
Like the rest of the forum. "Lightly" is a nice thought, but really, it'd be like trying to treat a really bad tooth with aspirin, when it needs novocaine and possibly a little pull.
well, I don't think most off topic posters want full moderation.
TV's Frink said:
Leonardo said:
Warbler said:
Leonardo, care to explain just how moderated you think the off topic section should be?
Like the rest of the forum.
Ugh. The rest of the forum is not nearly as entertaining. Given a choice between no moderation and full moderation in off-topic, I'll gladly vote for no moderation.
what about light moderation?
So far, if I am correct, 7 are for some sort of moderation in the off topic section, 2 are against.
Frink, you are not included in the above, I am not sure if you are for or against some sort of moderation.
All your problems would be solved with a more liberal use of the ignore function.
Tobar said:
All your problems would be solved with a more liberal use of the ignore function.
That's all this forum needs, more liberals.
Warbler said:
So far, if I am correct, 7 are for some sort of moderation in the off topic section, 2 are against.
Frink, you are not included in the above, I am not sure if you are for or against some sort of moderation.
I don't vote on non-binding resolutions.
Tobar said:
All your problems would be solved with a more liberal use of the ignore function.
make that 3 against.
unfortunately for ignore to work, a united front is needed, that can be difficult to get. If you don’t have everyone putting the troll on ignore, all that happens is that those that do, have a hard time understanding what is going on in conversations. I just think light moderation done by someone reasonable(not me), could solve some of these problems with trolls very quickly.
TV's Frink said:
Warbler said:
So far, if I am correct, 7 are for some sort of moderation in the off topic section, 2 are against.
Frink, you are not included in the above, I am not sure if you are for or against some sort of moderation.
I don't vote on non-binding resolutions.
as you wish. 7 for, 3 against, and 1 abstention.
Warbler said:
what about light moderation?
Light moderation = personal ignore list.
真実
I vote "nein" as well.
Don’t do drugs, unless you’re with me.
Neglify said:
I vote "nein" as well.
That's 6 for "no".
真実
No, he meant to vote for nine but made a typo.
Warbler said:
could solve some of these problems with trolls very quickly.
So who are these trolls and how would you determine them?
For all I know, this this could be a mastermind troll thread for troll textbooks.
真実
The problem is how to define "light moderation." I'm sure your idea of light moderation is not the same as everyone else's. Is it giving warnings/banning someone who is consistently unpleasant? Is it giving warnings/banning someone not respecting the rules of a thread?
I did once support the idea of getting rid of someone who is a bother to most of us; but we've worked pretty well - being able to ignore and shun such a person. I see too many downsides - let alone how annoying it would be, for Wook, to make the kind of subjective calls each person has in mind.
The blue elephant in the room.
looks like its 7 for, 5 against, and 1 abstention.
Mrebo said:
The problem is how to define "light moderation." I'm sure your idea of light moderation is not the same as everyone else's. Is it giving warnings/banning someone who is consistently unpleasant? Is it giving warnings/banning someone not respecting the rules of a thread?
I what I basically thought, was that when it is overwhelmingly obvious that someone is a troll, they should be gotten rid of. Perhaps warnings when someone is deliberately not respecting the rules of a thread and so do so very repeatedly, they should be warned multiple times and get a temp and if they still won't listen: perm ban. Same thing for someone being extremely rude, insulted and offensive. But I am open to suggested for exactly what light moderation means. Obviously at the very least it means that the moderation shouldn't act like a member of the SS.
I did once support the idea of getting rid of someone who is a bother to most of us; but we've worked pretty well - being able to ignore and shun such a person.
we have. We have had multiple trolls and other offenders. There is only one time in my memory when we united together and all ignored the guy until he left and it took a long while. It doesn't usually work because we are unable to get the united front. Meanwhile banning them would do the job much quicker.
I see too many downsides - let alone how annoying it would be, for Wook, to make the kind of subjective calls each person has in mind.
I guess you missed the part where I suggested appointing someone specifically to moderate the off topic section and then I nominated Frink.