StarGateWars Forums

this forum has more mods then active users OMG.
somewhere i saw a topic about a rule B or whatever.... it was funy cuz only few users posted and the majority were mods. tis says all .

Lithium wrote:this forum has more mods then active users OMG.
somewhere i saw a topic about a rule B or whatever.... it was funy cuz only few users posted and the majority were mods. tis says all .

You mean the thread where just as many mods were voting to make the rule lenient as mods that were voting to keep it just as strict? and that very same thread, the users posting was much like mods.. about half and half on each side.

Hardly a good example of corruption in the team.

ratio 1:1 is ridiculous ....no more comments no need.

Lithium wrote:this forum has more mods then active users OMG.
somewhere i saw a topic about a rule B or whatever.... it was funy cuz only few users posted and the majority were mods. tis says all .

Z E R O wrote:

Lithium wrote:this forum has more mods then active users OMG.
somewhere i saw a topic about a rule B or whatever.... it was funy cuz only few users posted and the majority were mods. tis says all .

You mean the thread where just as many mods were voting to make the rule lenient as mods that were voting to keep it just as strict? and that very same thread, the users posting was much like mods.. about half and half on each side.

Hardly a good example of corruption in the team.

Not an example of corruption, but an example of the lack of .. whatever it is .. in users. 25 people voted. Of those, no more than 10 were regular users at the time of their vote. Of those, 7:3 voted yes:no, and of the mods 6:9 voted yes:no.

Your statement is not in agreement with the facts.


There is a point here, but it is not 'corruption in the staff', rather a lack of involvement from users (which, ironically, this kind of public vote seeks to promote).

Juliette wrote:

Z E R O wrote:

Lithium wrote:this forum has more mods then active users OMG.
somewhere i saw a topic about a rule B or whatever.... it was funy cuz only few users posted and the majority were mods. tis says all .

You mean the thread where just as many mods were voting to make the rule lenient as mods that were voting to keep it just as strict? and that very same thread, the users posting was much like mods.. about half and half on each side.

Hardly a good example of corruption in the team.

Not an example of corruption, but an example of the lack of .. whatever it is .. in users. 25 people voted. Of those, no more than 10 were regular users at the time of their vote. Of those, 7:3 voted yes:no, and of the mods 6:9 voted yes:no.

Your statement is not in agreement with the facts.


There is a point here, but it is not 'corruption in the staff', rather a lack of involvement from users (which, ironically, this kind of public vote seeks to promote).

Let's call it reticence, or something like that. I can't speak for others, but I do know why I didn't bother to vote.

It wasn't a particularly major issue, mind you, but it was the first (and so far the only one) to be put to voting as such; this is why it was to be expected that few people would vote at first, and also why I wanted to contribute, even if the issue didn't really hold a lot of importance for me per se. Yet, I ended up not voting - simply put, because it was half-baked.

Saying that, I'm not trying to insult anyone or provoke anything, I'm just stating a strong impression. I should know what a half-baked thing is like, seeing as I've done plenty of those in my life.

The issue was about 'replying to the official post of a moderator in a topic' and whether it should be followed by verbal warnings or board warnings. Neither of the two choices did I find good enough.

I do remember in the last few days reading a blue post in some topic and wanting to reply to something said in it (I forgot which topic, and I don't think it was very important). But, if I understand that rule correctly, doing so would get me either a verbal or a board warning, depending on which version was in place at the time. Even though I thought my reply to be relevant enough to warrant posting it.

Posting it, mind you, not PM-ing the mod to be able to express my opinion and avoid breaking the rule at the same time. PM-ing is for individual discussions, posting is for everyone reading the topic to see and have the opportunity to reply to. Even in the voting topic, I wasn't supposed to post anything other than my vote (if I had one, but like I said, I didn't like either option); if I had anything else to add to the topic, I was supposed to PM SS about it, rather than post it and let everyone else discuss it or shoot it down as pointless.

Zero-tolerance, by-the-letter-of-the-law ruling I can understand; flexible, case-by-case ruling I can understand. In either case, the staff makes the calls and the users accept their decisions. What I don't understand is why, for instance, a special rule is needed for replying to a mod's official post. If there is a zero-tolerance ruling, delete it and warn the user, as with any kind of post that isn't allowed; if not, decide if it is spam or a meaningful contribution by judging the content of the post rather than whether it contains blue text inside a quote tag. Like I said, it feels like a half-baked attempt to please everyone - neither dictatorial/focused on up-keeping the order first and foremost, neither liberal/focused on reason and trust, but more like trying to please an annoying kid.

And for what's worth, I think that, given the current level of activity on these forums, a zero-tolerance ruling would be catastrophic, so the only way to keep the forums alive is the other alternative - a few general rules, whose application is left up for the staff to decide on a case-by-case scenario and the users to accept and deal with. Let the complainers complain (they have several places where they can do it), the troublemakers be warned and banned, and everyone else do their business freely, without having to memorize rulebooks with exception lists or to avoid certain topics for fear of an iron fist hitting them.

P.S. This discussion has itself gotten pretty off-topic, hasn't it?

In total there are 33 users online :: 3 registered, 2 hidden and 28 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 330 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:40 pm