Forum Moderator WTF



  • As most of you know, this forum has been lacking in moderation for quite some time.  Of course, Alex is the primary moderator, but I have personally never seen him engage in any act of moderation.  Then there is Our Savior The Great ammoQ, who has fought for truth and justice many times.  ammoQ generally only engages in moderation in extreme cases, such as spam or blatant trolling with no point whatsoever.  However, there is a Third..  an anti-ammoQ, if you will.  Where ammoQ is wise and just this moderator has frequently been absent.  While ammoQ has over 3,000 posts and seems quite knowledgeable of the in-jokes that have originated here, this moderator has fewer than 100 and is completely ignorant of our culture.  What's more, he is merely 20 years old and does not seem particularly competent with technology.  I am referring to Michael Something-or-other.


    Recently, Michael has taken an interest in moderating this forum more closely.  Personally, I am in favor of increased vigilance against blatant trolls like Lysis and JimBastard, as well as the locking of resurrected threads.  However, I feel that ammoQ has been quite diligent in his duties and has done a reasonable job of keeping the forums in line.  Last night Michael decided to post a thread with a warning of upcoming "official rules".  It seems as though this "moderator" couldn't figure out how to use the forum software, though, so he ended up posting it to pastebin.  I have mirrored his poorly-written rant so that it can be read by others.


    Despite having four "guidelines" he really only makes two points: don't call people stupid and don't break up a post point-by-point and "flame" the person.  Anyone capable of reasoning can conclude that the definition of flaming is quite subjective.  What's more, the implication is that one should always be polite when disagreeing with another poster.  While this might be a fine personal rule to follow, expecting others to do the same is petty and obnoxious.  This is not a forum of children and we do not need moderators to look out for the feelings of members who obviously had parents that sheltered them from the slightest provocation.  Also fascinating is the fact that Michael repeatedly violates his own rules, calling forum members "stupid", "idiotic" and "trolls" without providing a shred of support for those claims.  I would feel compelled to call him a despicable hypocrite, but that would most likely result in both of those words being thrown down the memory hole, never to be used by the hoi polloi again.


    Michael has more in mind than just banning words like "stupid" and "fucking" and "cunt".  He also intends to put an end to the tag "abuse", which is probably one of the most-loved features of this forum.  It seems that creativity is anathema to Michael's plan for a drab community of austere "materity" where everyone can sit around politely disagreeing with each other.  A community of crybabies who think "ad hominem" is a fancy way of saying "an insult".  We all know what happened the last time this TDWTF tried to clean up its image by purging obscenities from the title.  I think it's clear not many people here want to see this turn into a Disney-fied circle jerk.

     

    What's more, Michael has indicated on IRC several times that is planning to get particular users banned from the forums.  If this wasn't unfortunate enough, he is also intent on abusing powers on the IRC channel as well.  In his first few minutes on the channel -- without knowing anyone there or participating at all -- he targeted and banned MasterPlanSoftware for absolutely no reason.  His moderator abuse is evident in IRC and will soon be seen on the forums as well.  Despite his supposed distate for immaturity, he is the most immature and abusive moderator I have ever seen.  He enjoys calling people stupid and banning them, as well as making homophobic jokes.  For this reason, those of us interested in preserving a sane environment for the discussion of topics where nobody is censored for disagreeing with those in power have made our own IRC channel: #TDWTFMafia on irc.slashnet.org.  All are welcome to join but please expect that if you make stupid, false statements you will be called on it.  However, if you do not want to be subject to the spastic tantrums of a troubled child on a power-trip, you may find it to your liking.

     

    When someone is wrong I will disagree with them.  I will use strong language if I think it will be illustrative or will nudge someone in the right direction.  I will not bow to the whims of a child moderator who thinks everyone should share his love of insincere politesse.  I do not intend to be coerced into showing respect to those who I feel have not earned it.  I do not want these forums -- my forums -- run by a petty tyrant who can only tolerate bland, inoffensive pap.  I do not want to see the direction of this site dictated by whining infants who bawl and try to hide behind censorship at the slightest insult.  I don't feel that Michael is responsible enough to be a moderator nor representative of the community at large.  I ask that Alex carefully consider the path that little Mikey is intent on dragging us down.  Thank you.



  • I've never heard of him. 

    @morbiuswilters said:


    He also intends to put an end to the tag "abuse", which is probably one of the most-loved features of this forum.

     I guess he's afraid of AddPost.aspx's output growing over 1 gigabyte of tags. Right now it's like 500kb.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    He enjoys calling people stupid and banning them, as well as making homophobic jokes.

     

    I am homosexual, so err... ban me? 

     

     

    Oh well, as i said, i don't know him. From what you said, he's probably not the best guy to be a mod at these forums.



  • Thx for the flowers, and well... let's use this threads to discuss a possible set of rules you (the community) would like to see enforced.



  •  I think the forums should be moderated. The way they are moderated now. Sometimes a thread just changes to something completely different but are still enjoyable and quit informative. If they are not informative they are usually still fun reading and if not I just do not read them. We all seem to be grown ups and should be able to cope with bad language. I may qoute an irish bus driver talking to a policeman in Dublin

    I can drive on this fucking road the hole year

    and his reply was simply

    This fucking road is closed on St. Patricks Day.

    I was not hostile, it was more like a normal conversation. Correct me if I do not understand the "rules" correctly but according to them you could ban both parties for just having an exchange of information in their normal language.

    Though some things might not be acceptable I think the members of this forum are still grown up enough to award stupid posts a mug. 



  • I fucking agree, who the fuck does he think he fucking is, coming here fucking around and causing fucking drama with his fucking ignorance.

    We're not some fucking kindergarten class. We fucking well know what the fuck to say at any given fucking moment.

    This fucking does not apply to fucking trolls of cource. Because we all know how fucking annoying they are.

    We fucking need fucking someone fucking who fucking knows fucking this fucking forum.

      



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    he targeted and banned MasterPlanSoftware for absolutely no reason.
    +5 for comedy value. Sorry, I have a twisted sense of humour.

    So he wants to stop people from cutting up other people's posts and flaming them sentence by sentence? And he locked that cancer tumour of a thread? Oh, man is that gonna ruin it for some of the regulars... >:) 

    On a  more serious note I suppose it all depends on the kind of community you want to run. If the natives enjoy going after each other's throat, should you let them have their fun or restrict them so the place becomes a little more civilized? In any case this promises to be an interesting thread.



  • Actual [i]moderation[/i]? Here? Get out, you're kidding me.



  • A little moderation might be okay, but I haven't seen very much reason for it in here yet.

    Locking the SS thread is maybe the worst way to start anyway. It was fun to read and a good place to gather all trolls and flame posts allowing other threads to stay on-topic (for 2 posts :D )

    Alex, please keep the dog kid on a leash :P

     

     



  • <ranting about edit times on forum posts>



  • @Kefer said:

    allowing other threads to stay on-topic (for 2 posts :D )

    That's the thing..

    Post. Post. Flame...
    Post. Post. Flame...

    While fun for a while, it gets tiresome in a real hurry. Isn't the point of moderation usually to shove the kindergarten out?



  • Guy sounds like every other moderator who somehow manages to get "promoted" (Is he a friend of Alex's or something? I've never heard of the guy - usually moderators are pretty well-known in the community. This guy just seems to have popped up out of nowhere and became a mod) and lets power go to their head. We are all adults here, we don't need to be told to play nice and keep things politically correct like school children. If someone is a complete idiot and spouting nonsense, they [b]deserve[/b] to be flamed for their stupidity. Ignorant behavior should not be encouraged, but dealt with swiftly so the ignorant know that behavior is not tolerated.

    That said, I'm certain that under our new overlord this thread will be summarily locked, and the OP banned for disagreeing with a moderator (Rule #1 - Never argue with a moderator, even when they're clearly a fucking moron). That's usually how it goes on the internet.

    Remember, like in the book [i]Animal Farm[/i]: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.



  • FYI: Michael has been a moderator just as long as I. The afore mentioned post-post-flame pattern has of course caused some irritation among us mods. Locking the SSDS thread may have been a poor decision (you know my stance on that topic) but lets be honest, that thread has become a bit boring lately.



  • Have you considered a political career?

    As for me, while locking SpectateSwamp's thread is IMO not a good idea, I woudn't mind a stronger degree of moderation.



  • @ammoQ said:

    FYI: Michael has been a moderator just as long as I. The afore mentioned post-post-flame pattern has of course caused some irritation among us mods.
    I've never seen this question answered: how many mods are there? Are they active frequently? I get the sense that the mods were created some time ago and their numbers haven't been increased to respond to the influx of new members. Also, other than you, is there any active moderator? Spam threads, for example, manage to stay up for the better part of a day before getting any attention, and I can't be the only one who reports them.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Thx for the flowers, and well... let's use this threads to discuss a possible set of rules you (the community) would like to see enforced.

    IMO there's not very much moderation required. People that are just in here to insult / troll / flame should be banned if they persist in that behavior. Discriminating or otherwise seriously offending posts should be deleted.

    I'm a longtime reader (and as you can see, not the most active poster in that time) and i'm more annoyed by the poor quality of some of the OPs lately. But nothing much is to be done 'bout that I guess...



  • I don't mind that he locked the SS thread, its not like another one can't be started anytime for those who feel left out. I see a small need for moderation, but the benefits aren't really worth it yet. I mean, I don't care for a little language, but I don't like when people start name calling and all the other stuff.  But then again, we all know what the F in WTF stands for so we shouldn't be here if we couldn't handle it. Some patterns of late are discouraging though.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Remember, like in the book Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

     



  • @Spectre said:

    As for me, while locking SpectateSwamp's thread is IMO not a good idea, I woudn't mind a stronger degree of moderation.

     

    Hey! You heard Our Beloved Leader! Its the [b]Spectre[/b]Swamp thread!



  • This post has two versions, please select the one you want to use.

    [morbiuswilters-forum-mode]

    You're such a fucking idiotic retard it's suprises me you can even find the keys on your keyboard! Our Beloved Leader must moderate the boards! I do not read you arguments because I know I'm right. If you post arguments I'll just call you more idiotic, a troll and say (you don't even have the right to discuss the topic! || you are so badly informed it hurts my eye! || I've already proved my own righteousness and thus will just call you even more idiotic!)

    [ncommander-forum-mode]

     I still don't really get what's your problem with him. He might not (yet) be fully integrated into the community but basic civilization rules should apply to all communities. Like you said. He basically asks you not to insult people and not to degrind threads by turning them into a flame-fest. In the IRC you said you flamed people because they posted stupid/wrong things and/or are stupid/wrong. The problem with that is that you decide who's stupid and who's wrong. That is not an absolute thruth. Still you use your version of the truth to insult people and cause havoc in the threat. I think it's a good idea if there'd be a second-opinion to correct you. I know there is one already, but it seems he believes in as little modding as possible while that viewpoint seems to me as failed. Look at the threads. Moreover he , as you said, actively contributes to forums.tdwtf and has said himself it is not right to moderate a threat you post yourself in. A "I do not agree with a mod" threat could be created (like on every major forum) where can spout your disagreement. ammoQ, NCommander, the disagreer and interested posters could argue there about a threat.

    As you might've guessed I'm pro a stricter moderation. I think it would make the forums a much nicer place to be. 

    [/ncommander-forum-mode]



  • @dtech said:

    This post has two versions, ... bla bla bla

    What's your point IIMA? Or are you just trying to mock others?



  • I don't have any problem with one poster "flaming" another as long as they do it in a single post.  What I find is annoying is a series of one-line comments between two posters, bickering like an old couple and completely off topic.

    The only moderation I ask for is a way to squelch those wastes of space so that the people with something to say can be heard.  That could be accomplished with censoring, banning, thresholds, or personal block lists. 



  • @dtech said:

    Moreover he , as you said, actively contributes to forums.tdwtf and has said himself it is not right to moderate a threat you post yourself in.

    This is not a strict rule but rather a guideline to have a fair discussion. In a highly controversial thread (like the gun laws thread we had last week), it would look bad if I moderated people who disagree with me just because they e.g. use the word "moron" somewhere in their posts.  But nobody should take that as a license to troll, flame and spam just because I've posted once in a thread.

    As for the question "how many mods are there"? Well, at least two. Originally we were four (+Alex), but I'm afraid two of them are no longer active. 



  •  @ammoQ said:

    This is not a strict rule but rather a guideline to have a fair discussion. In a highly controversial thread (like the gun laws thread we had last week), it would look bad if I moderated people who disagree with me just because they e.g. use the word "moron" somewhere in their posts.  But nobody should take that as a license to troll, flame and spam just because I've posted once in a thread.


    AmmoQ, despite your opinion of me, or my minor issues with you in the past, I would like to take the chance and agree with morbiuswilters.

    You do a great job as is. You could argue a few more locks would be nice, or a few less, or whatever. However, I think so far the forums have gone just fine under your watch.

     

    So my point is the same as morbiuswilter's. I would like to see the forums stay precisely as they are now.



  • @ammoQ said:

    As for the question "how many mods are there"? Well, at least two. Originally we were four (+Alex), but I'm afraid two of them are no longer active. 
    Then it may be time to add some new mods. Other than you, I don't see any action by other mods, save the recent closing of the Mashup thread.



  • @bstorer said:

    Then it may be time to add some new mods.
     

    I would be ok with that, since the timezones, etc.

    But please use some discrepancy in choosing them. We don't need anyone like Mikey who uses no judgement or reasoning and ruined our IRC channel.

     

    In fact, I would like to be the first to nominate bstorer. He has done a great job as an OP on IRC, and always has great ideas for the forums.

    He would also rather argue something out with a troll or newbie than just lock their thread instantly and turn them into Lysis.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    So my point is the same as morbiuswilter's. I would like to see the forums stay precisely as they are now.
    I disagree. I'd like to see some rules/guidelines codified: Not rezzing dead threads, proper quoting technique, etc.



  • @bstorer said:

    I'd like to see some rules/guidelines codified: Not rezzing dead threads, proper quoting technique, etc.
     

    Ok... As a sticky or something. But I think those rules are already enforced. We just rely on peer to peer moderation instead of moderators.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @bstorer said:

    I'd like to see some rules/guidelines codified: Not rezzing dead threads, proper quoting technique, etc.
     

    Ok... As a sticky or something. But I think those rules are already enforced. We just rely on peer to peer moderation instead of moderators.

    I'd still support peer-to-peer moderation, but I think they need to be clearly posted. As it is now, attempting to correct people results in replies saying, "Who made you boss of the forum?" The guidelines need to be generally agreed-upon and then made legitimate.



  • @bstorer said:

    As it is now, attempting to correct people results in replies saying, "Who made you boss of the forum?" The guidelines need to be generally agreed-upon and then made legitimate.
     

    Agreed then. No harm in posting them.

    Also, a little backup from a mod when enforcing them would be nice somtimes.

     

    "Please don't quote the entire OP."

    "Who made you the boss? Leave me alone!"

    "No one made MPS the boss, but I am, and stop quoting the OP"



  •  Speaking of IRC, anyone know a good proxy tool to use with Pidgin? Fortunately for me our mcaffee blocks the irc port.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    A community of crybabies who think "ad hominem" is a fancy way of saying "an insult".

     @morbiuswilters said:

    without providing a shred of support for those claims

     Interesting. Calling you and MPS out on your supposed mastery of this forum by sheer volume of pseudo-intelligent trolling constitutes being a crybaby. Also, "insult" is probably the simplest way you could break down the real meaning of ad hominem. Ad hominem itself being latin for "to the man/human being." What about that phrase don't you understand?

    Let me break this down for you. Just because you have been here longer than most, and have posted way too much, does not make you some sort of authority figure. Don't piss your pants because you think you should be the moderator and Casadevall shouldn't. Who gives a shit? I know I don't. This is an internet forum, on a site about making fun of stupid things that people do. That's all it is. I use it as a distraction while I'm at work. You treat this place like it's your life, and the sheer length and depth of that post clearly demonstrates that you desperately need to get a real life, one with some interaction with real people. I suppose you wouldn't like that, though, would you? That would remove your internet filter that allows you to so easily belittle others and assert what you think is some sort of authority over them.



  • @Arenzael said:

     

    It is amazing. Everyone here is having a nice, reasonable, intelligent discussion. Then we are going to get this kind of stuff.



  • @Arenzael said:

    Ad hominem itself being latin for "to the man/human being." What about that phrase don't you understand?
    I'm not sure how you came to this understanding of the fallacy ad hominem, but regardless of that it should be corrected.

    Ad hominem fallacies need not be insults. In fact normally they aren't. Insults need not be ad hominem fallacies. In fact normally they aren't.

    If I'm trying to prove a point by saying that the points you're making are false because it's you who brought them up, that is ad hominem. More generally, it is an attack on the source of the argument rather than on the argument itself. It's obvious why this is a fallacy. The argument is being diverted from itself "to the man" (as you so correctly translated).

    "Arenzael's point is invalid because his nickname starts with the letter A," is ad hominem. "Arenzael is a double douche," is an insult. "Arenzael's point is invalid because he's a double douche," is both an insult and ad hominem.

    Please try harder next time you attempt to look intelligent. A quick trip to Wikipedia (or, in fact, any dictionary) could have saved you the embarrassment you're no doubt feeling.



  •  That will happen when the OP attacks you personally.



  • @Welbog said:

    "Arenzael's point is invalid because his nickname starts with the letter A," is ad hominem. "Arenzael is a double douche," is an insult. "Arenzael's point is invalid because he's a double douche," is both an insult and ad hominem.
     

    "Anything MPS or Morbius says is a troll because they post a lot" is:



  • @Arenzael said:

     That will happen when the OP attacks you personally.

     

    Despite having no clue who/what you are talking about, since you are just randomly replying with no quoting or anything, I have to say, I don't see anything in morb's OP that says anything about you personally.



  • @Arenzael said:

    Interesting. Calling you and MPS out on your supposed mastery of this forum by sheer volume of pseudo-intelligent trolling constitutes being a crybaby.
     

    Your comment here is precisely the sort of thing Michael wants to put an end to.  Personally, I feel you are entitled to your opinion of myself and MPS and should be allowed to air it.  I also believe I should be entitled to respond to your insult with verbal abuse of my own.  I see no reason why your post should be deleted or my thread locked simply because of what you have said. 

     

    @Arenzael said:

    Also, "insult" is probably the simplest way you could break down the real meaning of ad hominem. Ad hominem itself being latin for "to the man/human being." What about that phrase don't you understand?

    However, the negative form generally refers to the fallacy of attacking an individual or attempting to appeal to their prejudices instead of countering with evidence.  If someone is so sensitive that they take an off-the-cuff insult on an Internet forum to heart, then I would classify that as being a "crybaby".  I really can't think of a much more apt description.  However, I try to mix fact with my insults, all the while maintaining a humorous edge.  You may not like it, that's fine.  I do my best to write informative, passionate and interesting posts but I cannot please everyone.  Still, if you think that using bad language or flaming someone is immature, I suggest you read some of the great satirists like Swift and Twain.

     

    @Arenzael said:

    Let me break this down for you. Just because you have been here longer than most, and have posted way too much, does not make you some sort of authority figure.

    I never meant to imply I was.  I am speaking for myself only, although so far the responses have reinforced my feeling that censorship is not the right solution here.  You seem to confuse a desire on my part to develop, nuture and protect the particular culture of this forum with some kind of authority complex.  I assure you that I am only interested in maintaing the humor, intellect, style and even insults of this place.

     

    @Arenzael said:

    That's all it is. I use it as a distraction while I'm at work. You treat this place like it's your life, and the sheer length and depth of that post clearly demonstrates that you desperately need to get a real life, one with some interaction with real people. I suppose you wouldn't like that, though, would you? That would remove your internet filter that allows you to so easily belittle others and assert what you think is some sort of authority over them.

    I use it as a distraction at work, as well, it just so happens I have a lot of downtime recently.  This place is not my life, but I do like it and intend to continue contributing.  To me it sounds like you have some real issues here, not me.  Additionally, I have lots of real-life interaction and if someone acts like an idiot, I will gladly call them out on it.  However, I think the Internet filter works both ways and most people avoid spreading false information or blatantly stupid opinions in the flesh, so I have less of a need to correct them.  Still, there are plenty of morons I will gladly berate in public, such as the "9/11 Truth" dumbfucks.

     

    And now for the part we've all been waiting for:  I personally think you are a complete moron.   From your baseless claim that it must have been the Clinton campaign that hacked the Obama website to your hateful treatment of DrJokepu on his first thread which you later resurrected after it had been dead for a month just so you could troll DaveK.  And I understand that MPS and I will jump on people for posting garbled OPs, but we generally try to do with with a little bit of humor and not an out-an-out xenophobic flame that only reinforces the stereotype that Americans are moronic.



  • Moderation can be both a good and a bad thing.  I think most of us have a pretty good idea of where the compromise should lie.  I personally feel that moderators should be chosen based on their level of Involvement in the community.  Perhaps even go a step further by coming up with a few nominee's and then have a vote where the community can choose.  This seems fair to me because both admins, and the community get their say.  This would help keeping those with power issues from becoming and make sure that any selected mods were a good fit for the forums.  

    as for rules we should have a list of commonly accepted rules like no spamming.  by having this list new members will be able to better transition into the community.  This list should be kept as minimal as possible to not to stifle creativity. Perhaps create some sub forums of GD for people who want to debate religion, etc.

     



  • @galgorah said:

    as for rules we should have a list of commonly accepted rules like no spamming.  by having this list new members will be able to better transition into the community.  This list should be kept as minimal as possible to not to stifle creativity. Perhaps create some sub forums of GD for people who want to debate religion, etc.

     

    to elaborate on this a bit further, I think more of in terms "Information for new users guide" which would list some guarenteed no no's - spam.  And some things that are general etiquette, like how the reply and quote buttons should be used, could be in there as well to help inform new users.  abviously the latter is not bannable but would be usefull to have.  This example was helpful to me once pointed out.



  •  i think the current level of moderation is enough, just lock resurrected threads, in the sidebar at least, they can be useful in the "coding and help" forum if only for people googling etc.  But there are a few members who do come off as complete dicks sometimes so i just tend to ignore their posts, i quite often don't even read a post as soon as i see who the poster is.  A few of the members do seem to spend way to much time here and act a bit like it's their forum and everyone else is a guest but if it makes you happier than living in RL then rock out.  plus there's nothing that impresses the ladies like a high post ranking on a programming forum.

    The tag abuse is one of the ongoing jokes on the site which makes it quite amusing for those of us that have been regular readers for a while now, long  live rampant tag abuse. 

     Some of the trolls are pretty funny too, like tunnelRat, CPound and SS, but i do sometimes question the ethics of teasing people who clearly have some deep psychological problems but then again it is funny and they do kind of set themselves up for it.

     Seriously though the banning foul language thing is a fucking stupid idea, as metioned in one of the previous posts different cultures have different perceptions of acceptable language and given this is an international forum we need to cater for everyones choice of words in expressing themselves.  Also i find people who are offended by "foul" language that isn't directed at them personally kind of weird(and totally pissweak).  They are mainly used as emphasis words and if just reading a word makes you uncomfortable then it's you that has a problem and i don't think it's up to everyone else to accomodate illogical idiosyncracies.

    So on that note while i still can:

    Cunt , fuck, fuck, shit 



  • I've been reading this site for a year and a half, but this is the first time I ever saw a post worth registering to which to reply.

    The only real rule I would like to see added is something to curtail the amount of "vigilante moderatism" that seems to be going on. It is rather tiresome for me when I am reading a thread that I actually find to be interesting, only to find it derailed and reduced to a flame-fest simply because someone didn't follow another user's convoluted rules on when you should and should not use the quote feature. Quoting the original poster, or not quoting the post to which you are replying, has never bothered me, and I mostly never notice it, but I definitely notice the "Hey, look at this moron who quoted the OP!" posts.

    Another thing I would like to see is to have conversations where the subject abruptly changes (much like the aforementioned gun control topic) be split into their own separate thread. Note that I said "abruptly"; it's natural over the course of a discussion to have the subject change, but judicious use of this feature (if CS even has this feature) could help the clean threads stay, well, clean, and let the people who want to flame away do it in their own thread where they don't disrupt the original thread.

     And finally, if you want to just flame, troll, and generally be annoying, go to /b/. That's what it's there for. 



  • @element[0] said:

    So on that note, while I still can:

    Cunt, fuck, fuck, shit

    Honestly, if you had instead said:

    Pussy, make-love, make-love, poo-poo

    Wouldn't it have sounded incredibly stupid, idiotic and wholly inappropriate as compared with what you actually wrote?

    Sometimes, you just gotta spell it out, and that's why we are all proudly members of TDWT-[b]Fuck[/b]!



  • @Kefer said:

    A little moderation might be okay, but I haven't seen very much reason for it in here yet.

    Well, I've seen a few too many promising threads devolve into MPS and company bitching at each other over something offtopic. The SS thread didn't bother me too much, though I'd have like the ability to mark it "ignore."



  • @SuperousOxide said:

    I've seen a few too many promising threads devolve into MPS and company bitching at each other over something offtopic.
     

    Feel free to name some, it isn't productive to make accusations without evidence or any way for people to defend themselves.



  • Since you're asking questions on this subject:

    I stopped even bothering to reply on this forum because the regulars (morbiuswilters, MasterPlanSoftware, dlikhten, Lysis, et al) tend to tear any opening post, or any post which agrees with the opening post, or even any post which gets even slightly serious, to shreds. Then they often get into huge pointless arguments over which technicality trumps which. Often this turns into a contest to see which poster can be more condescending about the other one's choice of OS/programming language/other technology. It's really tiresome. If I wanted to read geeks trying to one-up each other to defend their nerd-cred, I'd move to Slashdot.

    And the whole "nominated for the mug" thing -- the sidebar isn't the main page, and it isn't the main page for a reason. The stuff on the sidebar is generally (with some exceptions, like snoofle's posts) not good enough for the main page. Yeah, there are a few posts which really don't belong. But at least four times as many posts get "nominated for the mug" as actually deserve it. It's shorthand for "we are the arbiters of taste on this forum, and if you can't please us, then go away." Get over yourselves, people! (And then some of these same people who are trying to shame other posters into going away have the nerve to complain that the moderators are intimidating! What are you, twelve years old? Hooray for the schoolyard bully mentality!)

    And about the whole "don't quote the whole post" thing? Yeah, okay, it's a little annoying when someone quotes a whole five inches of text to add a single line of commentary. But a whole post whose sole message is "don't quote a whole post" just makes the problem worse. Again: get over yourselves.

    (The "learn to use the forum software" thing is getting nearly as bad. The forum software sucks at the best of times. It probably sucks worse on obscure and/or old browsers than it does for me. Cut people some slack, will ya? Not everyone spends all their time on Internet forums, so there are going to be a lot of people who don't understand how to use sucky forum software. Get over yourselves one more.)

    As for the tag cloud: who really cares? The only case in which a tag cloud is actually useful is if you're trying to index content, and who would ever need an index to the TDWTF Forums? It's not at all hard to just ignore the tags if you don't like them.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @SuperousOxide said:

    I've seen a few too many promising threads devolve into MPS and company bitching at each other over something offtopic.
     

    Feel free to name some, it isn't productive to make accusations without evidence or any way for people to defend themselves.

     

    Productive threads? Everything on TDWTF is counter-productive. YOU SHOULD BE WORKING!

    In any case, MPS is not what kills the threads. But MPS needs to learn how to tell someone "you are wrong" without turning it into a flame war. MPS, its not that you are wrong, its that you can't respond in a non-flame-war way.

     

    Also, see tags



  • Fixed version of The Vicar's post:


    @The Vicar said:

    Since you're asking questions on this subject:

    I stopped even bothering to reply on this forum because the regulars (morbiuswilters, MasterPlanSoftware, dlikhten, Lysis, et al) tend to tear any opening post, or any post which agrees with the opening post, or even any post which gets even slightly serious, to shreds. Then they often get into huge pointless arguments over which technicality trumps which. Often this turns into a contest to see which poster can be more condescending about the other one's choice of OS/programming language/other technology. It's really tiresome. If I wanted to read geeks trying to one-up each other to defend their nerd-cred, I'd move to Slashdot.

    And the whole "nominated for the mug" thing -- the sidebar isn't the main page, and it isn't the main page for a reason. The stuff on the sidebar is generally (with some exceptions, like snoofle's posts) not good enough for the main page. Yeah, there are a few posts which really don't belong. But at least four times as many posts get "nominated for the mug" as actually deserve it. It's shorthand for "we are the arbiters of taste on this forum, and if you can't please us, then go away." Get over yourselves, people! (And then some of these same people who are trying to shame other posters into going away have the nerve to complain that the moderators are intimidating! What are you, twelve years old? Hooray for the schoolyard bully mentality!)

    And about the whole "don't quote the whole post" thing? Yeah, okay, it's a little annoying when someone quotes a whole five inches of text to add a single line of commentary. But a whole post whose sole message is "don't quote a whole post" just makes the problem worse. Again: get over yourselves.

    (The "learn to use the forum software" thing is getting nearly as bad. The forum software sucks at the best of times. It probably sucks worse on obscure and/or old browsers than it does for me. Cut people some slack, will ya? Not everyone spends all their time on Internet forums, so there are going to be a lot of people who don't understand how to use sucky forum software. Get over yourselves one more.)

    As for the tag cloud: who really cares? The only case in which a tag cloud is actually useful is if you're trying to index content, and who would ever need an index to the TDWTF Forums? It's not at all hard to just ignore the tags if you don't like them.



  • Sorry about that. I've been working with systems lately which recognize paragraph breaks without being told (Wordpress, primarily).



  • Personally I really like the nature of the forums here.  It has a very distinct atmosphere and does a good job of aiding newcomers to either integrate or find communities more to their style.  As far as posting goes, I find I double check my facts before posting here a lot more than elsewhere, largely because this place is so well self regulating.  That improves the quality of this forum.

    My biggest fear for this community, is that some moderator decides to "clean it up" and enforces only the most polite conduct, making way for a very different crowd of user to feel at home here when they shouldn't unless they raise the bar.  When someone posts something that is completely retarded, you have to get a little harsh or, they will think you actually want to discuss it with them

    Example:  Mr. Lonely net hopper goes to a forum and posts some personally biased thread about a platform filled with bad information.  If you politely correct them, they actually think you want to discuss the topic.  This is a very dangerous miscommunication and invites Mr Lonely to feel rewarded for his retarded post.  You have to crank up the heat, to make it clear you have no interest in a happy little discussion with them - you just don't want to allow their completely messed up facts go unchallanged and potentially infect others.  Next time, this guy has to think a bit before posting because he remembers the exchange unpleasantly.  I hate to say it, but there are a lot of people out there that will not respond to simple 'corrections' and need to be flamed a bit to get it. 

    If a "flat earther" posts a sidebar with "the real wtf are globes and that whole fake moonlanding business" do we really want rules to force us to make that guy feel welcome?


    Just making the point because, I think the self regulation works really well here, and actually is a good part of the reason for the quality we do see.  To gut something that has worked for a long time so a Moderator can enact some rule scheme they think they can make work better that what we have is, imo, a really bad idea.



  • @BeenThere said:

    If a "flat earther" posts a sidebar with "the real wtf are globes and that whole fake moonlanding business" do we really want rules to force us to make that guy feel welcome?

    The problem is that flaming doesn't work to keep loonies away either. Look at the SpectateSwamp thread. All the flaming does is keep away people who don't want to read flaming.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.