Page 1 of 2
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:33 am
by Vendetta
Personally I think of SGW general as anything game, or SGW community related, that isnt a war thread, a suggestion, bug or just anything that has a specifically designated section for it.
General SHOULD be the biggest section, as its just anything in general that relates to the game. I dont think you can define it any better than that. If it dosnt have a specific section, isnt pure spam, and is game/community related, then it belongs in general.
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:24 am
by semper
General would be for anything game related that has an effect on the entire community.
for example...Stories behind major wars, announcements of mods/players tragedies and awards, general other discussion topics about the game community. (The mention of who you like to mass with, your favourite SGW character.)
Discussion, and moaning about the game belongs in the update discussion section and places as such. Things about nonsense. Like the harry potter rubbish you gave us Tok'ra, belong in this and that. Poll's and other pieces of characterful of rubbish etc, belong in spam. I should make a topic..Semper's 123 of what belongs in each section..lol
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:33 am
by Trife
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:48 am
by agapooka
Tok`ra wrote:common sense
That'd be the answer to the question. I know some lack it, but most don't have much of a problem instinctively knowing what belongs here and what doesn't. The problem comes in limiting an already understood concept to human words.
Even in law they have to say "[this] includes, but is not limited to [such and such]"
I say we oughtn't descend to that level... I mean, lawyers (ugh), but if you insist on making such a "big deal" about something that really isn't
J
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:58 am
by Cole
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:02 pm
by smooshable
I'm pro discusion and I'm pro controversy, I don't think a topic like this is to sticky to discus, I don't think it's even close.
To me, general means general. Forum does have some rules about not allowing personal abuse upon other people that we must abide by but I'd like to encourage mods to start deleting abuse and spam and splitting topics where two distinct conversations have emerged and really reserve locking topics for extreme and rare occasions. I'm not sure what should count as general but I think the definition could be wider. I'll be keeping my eye on this thread for more ideas.
Smoosh
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:17 pm
by Rienna
tok'ra, be respectful. no matter how you felt about him and his administration, you have to give him credit for his time and effort put into the forum. quit being an ingrateful sod, in his time, Pookie did many great things for this community.
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:52 am
by Sphinx42
Tok`ra wrote:the one person who was pointing out the begining of the decline
You make it sound like you're Hari Seldon himself
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:38 pm
by Phlamingoe
Tok`ra wrote:NO MORE LOCKING THREADS AS OVER. The USERS decide if a thread is over, how do they decide ? They stop posting in it.
No more pruning spam from threads. So a thread gets offtopic for a bit, big deal. It happens. Simply quote or post a summary of the thread, or do nothing, were not that dense that we cant read a thread (most of us anyway and those that cant dont deserve coddling)
This is one of the things I agree with you on. Who's a mod to decide when a conversation is over? As long as it's within the rules, who cares. Real conversations between 2 people talking don't stay on the same topic the whole time, they move on to other things. Why should we have to make another new topic when we can just discuss it here.
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:45 pm
by agapooka
Well, it isn't between two people, and others may have to add things to the original topic.
See, if it was just between two people, we'd just need one big topic and no ability to create more.
How often do you tell someone else "let's make a new topic... ok, let's talk about water and how tasty it is"
That said, I'm not saying some evolution is bad in conversation, just pointing out the difference between a 2 person conversation and a board that involves hundreds upon hundreds of people.
J
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:55 pm
by killtacular
Forum wrote:using someone elses tragedy as an excuse to spam, then blaming moderators for not treating the 2 issues identically, is amazingly selfish, insensitive and i think speaks to your moral compass (or lack of)...
locked, warned. i thought you had agreed to stop posting solely to create controversy?
Looks like not to much longer, please keep digging your hole tok'ra
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:07 am
by killtacular
I haven't started a hundred topics in the last week or 2 . Useless about3/4 of them you causing trouble .
Trolling stands for stating the truth that hurts. Keep digging your almost there.
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:01 am
by Flavar
Well Tokra all my attempts to find rules for general have failed.
I will allways be against destroying a topic via spamm. But there are many ways of spamm and only some are posted with the intention of stopping a topic the spammer doesnot like.
And closing topics because nobody posts are stupid^^
I really agree that we need new rules and guidlines.
But we had the discussion really often now and i would welcome it if you for once showed me your dream ruleset:-)
Flavar
PS: somehow i cant see the reply buttons etc. Does anybody know what i have to change to see them. I am not at my home pc and using something called SlimBrowser
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:07 pm
by killtacular
How ironic tok'ra pointing the finger at someone spamming LOL what a joke.
All of that crap you posted only if you followed what you said.
Only then I will stop thinking your nothing but a joke.
Re: Can a mod define SGW general ?
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:17 pm
by Reaperman
Tok`ra wrote:I know Ive made this thread before, but I cant be arsed to search for it considering my origonal account was deleted (thus the search function would take forever)
The problem is thus: There is no clearcut guideline for what belongs in general.
In the end it comes down to does a mod like the thread, more specificly, does ANY mod dislke the thread, enuf to move it.
While its not quite as big of an issue as it once was, it is still an issue, if only becasue there is no deffinition of what belogs in general.
'ingame stuff' some mods say, but that covers numerous other sections.
'ingame stuff taht doesnt belong elsewer' yet that still doesnt cover everything.
I suggest a formal policy be establised.
My suggested policy is as so: Anything that relates to teh game (as long as it isnt blatently in teh wrong section) OR the community.
For a community topic, expect it to be semi offtopic or spammy, thats OK. Its called sidebar conversations, it builds communities. That means no pruning/decalreing thread done and locking.
So therefore, general would be updated to 'anything ingame not specificly belonging in another section, AND anything related to the community and players'
NO MORE LOCKING THREADS AS OVER. The USERS decide if a thread is over, how do they decide ? They stop posting in it.
No more pruning spam from threads. So a thread gets offtopic for a bit, big deal. It happens. Simply quote or post a summary of the thread, or do nothing, were not that dense that we cant read a thread (most of us anyway and those that cant dont deserve coddling)
So, comments ?
Who are you and what did you do with Tok'ra?
This is not the rant we have come to expect of you
