As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

G&T open discussion thread

1356714

Posts

  • Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Lanz wrote:
    I don't remember him using hte word "experiment" directly, despite claims towards this.

    however, it is not exactly a stretch of the imagination to equate
    But why did this happen? I think it happened because us, the mods, wanted to see what you, the users, did when engaged in an actual discussion about the future of the forum.

    to the admission of it being a purposeful experiment of sorts on the forumers.

    I totally understand why people jumped to the conclusion that it was all some kind of insane, bastardly experiment, especially based on what apotheos said. But it wasn't, and that's the truth.



    Do I wish he hadn't made that post? You bet your fucking ass I wish he hadn't.

    Captain K on
  • 404404 Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    GimeC wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    TxdoHawk wrote:
    So wait, this all erupted because of a "no 4chan" rule? I'm not saying it's right, because it isn't, but I remember awhile back Munkus Beaver instituted a "4chan=ban" policy for a bit and there was hardly any uproar. This is a little puzzling.
    That was the policy for a long time. Basically, moderation slipped to the point it's at now. Apo's terribly tactless post was (I believe) in essence saying that it's coming back.

    I would like to add that while Apo's post may have been unpopular, the move is not.
    There were two big questions that came out of the 4chan banning, one directly related, one indirectly.

    The direct one was, well, where do we draw the line? Yes, 4chan is not referenced a lot, but it does provide for discussion. And about the "this is a 13+ community" post, what, should we stop talking about and posting pictures from M rated games?

    The other question still remains about driving away the current community.
    4chan is a special case because so very much of its content is SO explicit and disturbing in so many different ways. IIRC (and I may not), the same rule may have been in place for linking to SA, for the same reasons. I don't have answers to more than that, but I can tell you that as I understood it, that was the policy and why.
    SA? I've never heard of this rule. Is there a reason? We can't link to comedy goldmines?

    Uhh. This doesn't sound right, because I remember the (rather hilarious) "Why is this chat pink?" thread. Which was directly linked to SA in the firstpost.
    And Orikae's constant linking to the SA forums.

    404 on
    Getter404.png
  • Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Imran wrote:
    Which begs the question, exactly what changes can we affect from this thread and what is going to be "This is how it works, the mods are discussing this"?
    To be totally honest, I don't think this thread is going to result in any forum changes. Right now I'm still trying to clear the air from the other night, because there's so much misinformation floating around.

    Kyou's most recent post in this thread, for example.

    Captain K on
  • ShimShamShimSham Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Captain K wrote:
    I totally understand why people jumped to the conclusion that it was all some kind of insane, bastardly experiment, especially based on what apotheos said. But it wasn't, and that's the truth.
    The problem is that he called it an experiment, meaning that's what it was to him.

    You and others may not have been under the impression that it was but perhaps, without trying to sound like a conspiracist, it was his plan to do that as his own personal experiment.

    ShimSham on
    QcGKhPm.jpg
  • ceresceres When the last moon is cast over the last star of morning And the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited June 2006
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    TxdoHawk wrote:
    So wait, this all erupted because of a "no 4chan" rule? I'm not saying it's right, because it isn't, but I remember awhile back Munkus Beaver instituted a "4chan=ban" policy for a bit and there was hardly any uproar. This is a little puzzling.
    That was the policy for a long time. Basically, moderation slipped to the point it's at now. Apo's terribly tactless post was (I believe) in essence saying that it's coming back.

    I would like to add that while Apo's post may have been unpopular, the move is not.
    There were two big questions that came out of the 4chan banning, one directly related, one indirectly.

    The direct one was, well, where do we draw the line? Yes, 4chan is not referenced a lot, but it does provide for discussion. And about the "this is a 13+ community" post, what, should we stop talking about and posting pictures from M rated games?

    The other question still remains about driving away the current community.
    4chan is a special case because so very much of its content is SO explicit and disturbing in so many different ways. IIRC (and I may not), the same rule may have been in place for linking to SA, for the same reasons. I don't have answers to more than that, but I can tell you that as I understood it, that was the policy and why.
    SA? I've never heard of this rule. Is there a reason? We can't link to comedy goldmines?
    Same as 4chan. Some of the imagery is just too much. Like I said, I could be wrong on that. My memory is very good, but not quite perfect. I just seem to remember it.

    ceres on
    And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    404 wrote:
    GimeC wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    TxdoHawk wrote:
    So wait, this all erupted because of a "no 4chan" rule? I'm not saying it's right, because it isn't, but I remember awhile back Munkus Beaver instituted a "4chan=ban" policy for a bit and there was hardly any uproar. This is a little puzzling.
    That was the policy for a long time. Basically, moderation slipped to the point it's at now. Apo's terribly tactless post was (I believe) in essence saying that it's coming back.

    I would like to add that while Apo's post may have been unpopular, the move is not.
    There were two big questions that came out of the 4chan banning, one directly related, one indirectly.

    The direct one was, well, where do we draw the line? Yes, 4chan is not referenced a lot, but it does provide for discussion. And about the "this is a 13+ community" post, what, should we stop talking about and posting pictures from M rated games?

    The other question still remains about driving away the current community.
    4chan is a special case because so very much of its content is SO explicit and disturbing in so many different ways. IIRC (and I may not), the same rule may have been in place for linking to SA, for the same reasons. I don't have answers to more than that, but I can tell you that as I understood it, that was the policy and why.
    SA? I've never heard of this rule. Is there a reason? We can't link to comedy goldmines?

    Uhh. This doesn't sound right, because I remember the (rather hilarious) "Why is this chat pink?" thread. Which was directly linked to SA in the firstpost.
    And Orikae's constant linking to the SA forums.
    Honestly, there's only harm in direct linking to pictures on SA.

    Even then, I don't think it does that anymore.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    ShimSham wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    I totally understand why people jumped to the conclusion that it was all some kind of insane, bastardly experiment, especially based on what apotheos said. But it wasn't, and that's the truth.
    The problem is that he called it an experiment, meaning that's what it was to him.

    You and others may not have been under the impression that it was but perhaps, without trying to sound like a conspiracist, it was his plan to do that as his own personal experiment.
    apotheos said in several mod forum posts after it was all said and done that he really doesn't know why he used those words, because they didn't really reflect anything he was thinking in particular. He was just pissed off and posting faster than he could think, like a lot of people were.


    I'm quite explicitly not allowed to quote a post in the mod forum, or I would do it. You'll just have to decide whether to believe me.

    Captain K on
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    ceres wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    TxdoHawk wrote:
    So wait, this all erupted because of a "no 4chan" rule? I'm not saying it's right, because it isn't, but I remember awhile back Munkus Beaver instituted a "4chan=ban" policy for a bit and there was hardly any uproar. This is a little puzzling.
    That was the policy for a long time. Basically, moderation slipped to the point it's at now. Apo's terribly tactless post was (I believe) in essence saying that it's coming back.

    I would like to add that while Apo's post may have been unpopular, the move is not.
    There were two big questions that came out of the 4chan banning, one directly related, one indirectly.

    The direct one was, well, where do we draw the line? Yes, 4chan is not referenced a lot, but it does provide for discussion. And about the "this is a 13+ community" post, what, should we stop talking about and posting pictures from M rated games?

    The other question still remains about driving away the current community.
    4chan is a special case because so very much of its content is SO explicit and disturbing in so many different ways. IIRC (and I may not), the same rule may have been in place for linking to SA, for the same reasons. I don't have answers to more than that, but I can tell you that as I understood it, that was the policy and why.
    SA? I've never heard of this rule. Is there a reason? We can't link to comedy goldmines?
    Same as 4chan. Some of the imagery is just too much. Like I said, I could be wrong on that. My memory is very good, but not quite perfect. I just seem to remember it.
    I can't think of any content on SA that really qualifies as disgusting.

    Now, it used to be if you hotlinked from them, you'd get goatse'd or something. That may be what you're thinking of.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    ShimSham wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    I totally understand why people jumped to the conclusion that it was all some kind of insane, bastardly experiment, especially based on what apotheos said. But it wasn't, and that's the truth.
    The problem is that he called it an experiment, meaning that's what it was to him.

    You and others may not have been under the impression that it was but perhaps, without trying to sound like a conspiracist, it was his plan to do that as his own personal experiment.
    He has made it pretty clear that he dislikes the chat thread in the past, I think.

    To me, this seemed like an attempt to make the chat thread look bad. By him. Not by any other mod. It worked.

    deadonthestreet on
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    ceres wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    TxdoHawk wrote:
    So wait, this all erupted because of a "no 4chan" rule? I'm not saying it's right, because it isn't, but I remember awhile back Munkus Beaver instituted a "4chan=ban" policy for a bit and there was hardly any uproar. This is a little puzzling.
    That was the policy for a long time. Basically, moderation slipped to the point it's at now. Apo's terribly tactless post was (I believe) in essence saying that it's coming back.

    I would like to add that while Apo's post may have been unpopular, the move is not.
    There were two big questions that came out of the 4chan banning, one directly related, one indirectly.

    The direct one was, well, where do we draw the line? Yes, 4chan is not referenced a lot, but it does provide for discussion. And about the "this is a 13+ community" post, what, should we stop talking about and posting pictures from M rated games?

    The other question still remains about driving away the current community.
    4chan is a special case because so very much of its content is SO explicit and disturbing in so many different ways. IIRC (and I may not), the same rule may have been in place for linking to SA, for the same reasons. I don't have answers to more than that, but I can tell you that as I understood it, that was the policy and why.
    SA? I've never heard of this rule. Is there a reason? We can't link to comedy goldmines?
    Same as 4chan. Some of the imagery is just too much. Like I said, I could be wrong on that. My memory is very good, but not quite perfect. I just seem to remember it.
    Very rarely do they post anything sexual or gorey. It's mostly halarious. This is what I'm talking about. Many sites have questionably, even offensive content. So what? Do we ban ytmnd? Do we ban youtube? Maybe we should ban google image search?

    Hell, let's ban talking.

    Faricazy on
  • ShimShamShimSham Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Captain K wrote:
    ShimSham wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    I totally understand why people jumped to the conclusion that it was all some kind of insane, bastardly experiment, especially based on what apotheos said. But it wasn't, and that's the truth.
    The problem is that he called it an experiment, meaning that's what it was to him.

    You and others may not have been under the impression that it was but perhaps, without trying to sound like a conspiracist, it was his plan to do that as his own personal experiment.
    apotheos said in several mod forum posts after it was all said and done that he really doesn't know why he used those words, because they didn't really reflect anything he was thinking in particular. He was just pissed off and posting faster than he could think, like a lot of people were.


    I'm quite explicitly not allowed to quote a post in the mod forum, or I would do it. You'll just have to decide whether to believe me.
    I believe you because I trust you K, but I mean, considering 99% of the rest of the forum didn't see him say that and probably wouldn't believe him if he had, it's still troubling.

    ShimSham on
    QcGKhPm.jpg
  • Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    ShimSham wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    I totally understand why people jumped to the conclusion that it was all some kind of insane, bastardly experiment, especially based on what apotheos said. But it wasn't, and that's the truth.
    The problem is that he called it an experiment, meaning that's what it was to him.

    You and others may not have been under the impression that it was but perhaps, without trying to sound like a conspiracist, it was his plan to do that as his own personal experiment.
    He has made it pretty clear that he dislikes the chat thread in the past, I think.

    To me, this seemed like an attempt to make the chat thread look bad. By him. Not by any other mod. It worked.
    Once again, it really was not an attempt at anything. He made a post about the constant referrals in G&T to what's basically a porn site--one of his biggest pet peeves--and he did so rather haphazardly. It erupted.

    Captain K on
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Captain K wrote:
    Imran wrote:
    Which begs the question, exactly what changes can we affect from this thread and what is going to be "This is how it works, the mods are discussing this"?
    To be totally honest, I don't think this thread is going to result in any forum changes.
    I'm going to repeat my sentiments that I don't think this is the way to run this forum. It should not be a dictatorship, and we, as the community and what keeps this place alive, should have a pretty good say into what goes down - not so much in the rules, but in the threads we make and the community bonds we share (the chat thread and the system megathreads, among other things).

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    ShimSham wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    ShimSham wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    I totally understand why people jumped to the conclusion that it was all some kind of insane, bastardly experiment, especially based on what apotheos said. But it wasn't, and that's the truth.
    The problem is that he called it an experiment, meaning that's what it was to him.

    You and others may not have been under the impression that it was but perhaps, without trying to sound like a conspiracist, it was his plan to do that as his own personal experiment.
    apotheos said in several mod forum posts after it was all said and done that he really doesn't know why he used those words, because they didn't really reflect anything he was thinking in particular. He was just pissed off and posting faster than he could think, like a lot of people were.


    I'm quite explicitly not allowed to quote a post in the mod forum, or I would do it. You'll just have to decide whether to believe me.
    I believe you because I trust you K, but I mean, considering 99% of the rest of the forum didn't see him say that and probably wouldn't believe him if he had, it's still troubling.
    I'm not happy about it either, man. I don't know what else to tell you.

    Captain K on
  • ceresceres When the last moon is cast over the last star of morning And the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited June 2006
    ceres wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    Faricazy wrote:
    ceres wrote:
    TxdoHawk wrote:
    So wait, this all erupted because of a "no 4chan" rule? I'm not saying it's right, because it isn't, but I remember awhile back Munkus Beaver instituted a "4chan=ban" policy for a bit and there was hardly any uproar. This is a little puzzling.
    That was the policy for a long time. Basically, moderation slipped to the point it's at now. Apo's terribly tactless post was (I believe) in essence saying that it's coming back.

    I would like to add that while Apo's post may have been unpopular, the move is not.
    There were two big questions that came out of the 4chan banning, one directly related, one indirectly.

    The direct one was, well, where do we draw the line? Yes, 4chan is not referenced a lot, but it does provide for discussion. And about the "this is a 13+ community" post, what, should we stop talking about and posting pictures from M rated games?

    The other question still remains about driving away the current community.
    4chan is a special case because so very much of its content is SO explicit and disturbing in so many different ways. IIRC (and I may not), the same rule may have been in place for linking to SA, for the same reasons. I don't have answers to more than that, but I can tell you that as I understood it, that was the policy and why.
    SA? I've never heard of this rule. Is there a reason? We can't link to comedy goldmines?
    Same as 4chan. Some of the imagery is just too much. Like I said, I could be wrong on that. My memory is very good, but not quite perfect. I just seem to remember it.
    I can't think of any content on SA that really qualifies as disgusting.

    Now, it used to be if you hotlinked from them, you'd get goatse'd or something. That may be what you're thinking of.
    You know, that's probably what it was, now that you mention it. Hehe, that brings back some memories.

    ceres on
    And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
  • Conditional_AxeConditional_Axe Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    Imran wrote:
    Which begs the question, exactly what changes can we affect from this thread and what is going to be "This is how it works, the mods are discussing this"?
    To be totally honest, I don't think this thread is going to result in any forum changes.
    I'm going to repeat my sentiments that I don't think this is the way to run this forum. It should not be a dictatorship, and we, as the community and what keeps this place alive, should have a pretty good say into what goes down - not so much in the rules, but in the threads we make and the community bonds we share (the chat thread and the system megathreads, among other things).
    on one hand, the mods do have every right to ignore what people are saying. in fact, we represent a minority of the forum's population, and most people don't care one way or the other. it would certainly be a courtesy for the administrators to listen, but precedent would indicate that it won't happen.

    Conditional_Axe on
  • Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    Imran wrote:
    Which begs the question, exactly what changes can we affect from this thread and what is going to be "This is how it works, the mods are discussing this"?
    To be totally honest, I don't think this thread is going to result in any forum changes.
    I'm going to repeat my sentiments that I don't think this is the way to run this forum. It should not be a dictatorship, and we, as the community and what keeps this place alive, should have a pretty good say into what goes down - not so much in the rules, but in the threads we make and the community bonds we share (the chat thread and the system megathreads, among other things).
    Well, I'm personally all for the userbase getting a significant say in what goes on. But it says right in the rules thread, in a post made in 2004, that G&T is a dictatorship, and I really don't think that's going to change. The final decision will always be made by a handpicked group of moderators and the forum admin.

    Captain K on
  • ImranImran Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    Imran wrote:
    Which begs the question, exactly what changes can we affect from this thread and what is going to be "This is how it works, the mods are discussing this"?
    To be totally honest, I don't think this thread is going to result in any forum changes.
    I'm going to repeat my sentiments that I don't think this is the way to run this forum. It should not be a dictatorship, and we, as the community and what keeps this place alive, should have a pretty good say into what goes down - not so much in the rules, but in the threads we make and the community bonds we share (the chat thread and the system megathreads, among other things).
    I wouldn't phrase it like that. I think the mods should be allowed to make decisions on their own, but certainly not like this.

    It seems that opening it up to "discussion" for the past few days has only served three purposes: letting people paint targets on their back, making the people try to look stupid, and as a point of "Look, we tried". There's been no real attempt to get community involvement, just unused feedback.

    Imran on
    nanasigsmallerrj4.jpg
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Captain K wrote:
    Okay, C_Axe and Imran and dots, and others, I'll just level with you guys.


    Do I think that apotheos is a bad guy? No.

    Do I think that he's a good mod? I do.

    Do I think that he can be an insufferable prick a lot of the time? Hell yes I do.


    I'd say the same about pheezer. A good guy, a good mod, and a complete fucker on a regular basis.




    If you want me to elaborate on any of this, just ask and I'll try if I can.
    here's the thing, he could be the best guy in the world, but from his behavior in front of gen. pop., you'd never know. Someone said that he's one of the biggest trolls he's seen on the board, and I don't know if he's the biggest, but he's certainly up there, in my experience, and in the experience of others. you're entitled to your opinion, but is your opinion enough to dismiss several complaints completely out of hand?

    Awww, you're sweet, Axe <3


    [spoiler:f323c28267]Heh, sorry sorry.[/spoiler:f323c28267]

    The Muffin Man on
  • TxdoHawkTxdoHawk Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    TxdoHawk wrote:
    So wait, this all erupted because of a "no 4chan" rule? I'm not saying it's right, because it isn't, but I remember awhile back Munkus Beaver instituted a "4chan=ban" policy for a bit and there was hardly any uproar. This is a little puzzling.
    Most people do not have a problem with the rule.

    Nearly everyone has a problem with the way in which the rule was presented.

    Ah. I missed that panning through this thread, now I understand.
    ceres wrote:
    That was the policy for a long time. Basically, moderation slipped to the point it's at now. Apo's terribly tactless post was (I believe) in essence saying that it's coming back.

    I would like to add that while Apo's post may have been unpopular, the move is not.

    I can understand the motives behind decisions like these, and why sometimes such rulings are nessecary. But I would also like to appeal to the fact that decisions like this can turn into a slippery slope. There's a fine line between "this is going to stop because it is bad for the forum" and "this is going to stop because we (we being the mods or the vocal forum population) don't like it."

    Regarding mod attitude and representation: There are plenty of policies and practices in effect on G&T that I don't particularly like. But I am willing to let things slide somewhat for the sake of a smooth forum experience. There seem to be plenty of others that happily abide by this idea too. I don't mean to sound condescending, but there have been points where members of the modship could've done better if they had taken this idea to heart. A lot of people respect the hard-line mods because they get the job done, period. "My way or the highway" works remarkably well if you are holding the ban stick, it's true. But using this line of action too much brings about a lot of repressed unhappiness, as we've seen here. I hope this is kept in mind in the future.

    TxdoHawk on
    TuxedoHawk.png
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Frankly, I don't think the mods should be making the rules anyway. It's like the police making their own laws.

    Of course, that begs the question of who should be making rules. It would probably fall on Gabe & Tycho, and since they couldn't care less about the forums anyhow, they'd probably shut them down rather than deal with it.

    ...so I guess we're stuck.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Just a heads up--I'm not going to be able to follow this thread much longer, and I'm going to lock it when I leave in about five or ten minutes. Nothing personal, but I'd like to be able to answer questions in a timely fashion. I'll probably unlock it again for another rap session tomorrow.

    Captain K on
  • ceresceres When the last moon is cast over the last star of morning And the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited June 2006
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    Imran wrote:
    Which begs the question, exactly what changes can we affect from this thread and what is going to be "This is how it works, the mods are discussing this"?
    To be totally honest, I don't think this thread is going to result in any forum changes.
    I'm going to repeat my sentiments that I don't think this is the way to run this forum. It should not be a dictatorship, and we, as the community and what keeps this place alive, should have a pretty good say into what goes down - not so much in the rules, but in the threads we make and the community bonds we share (the chat thread and the system megathreads, among other things).
    See, the fundamental probelm with this is that it's not a democracy. It's an oligarchy. It is allowed to remain by the grace of a few people that pay its bills. I know that everyone wants their turn to say something, and everyone wants things run as they see fit, but in reality there is another picture here. Just keep it in mind.

    ceres on
    And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Captain K wrote:
    Just a heads up--I'm not going to be able to follow this thread much longer, and I'm going to lock it when I leave in about five or ten minutes. Nothing personal, but I'd like to be able to answer questions in a timely fashion. I'll probably unlock it again for another rap session tomorrow.
    You're like a handsome FDR.

    :^: for fireside chats.

    Faricazy on
  • Mai-KeroMai-Kero Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Why was Raijin demodded?

    Mai-Kero on
  • Non-Existent FreezerNon-Existent Freezer Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Regarding previous drama:

    I was not around to witness the start of the drama, but I do believe that I have a slight idea as to what went on. Essentially, I thought that inapropriate actions/comments were made by both sides and that in the end no one was really correct. I would say that it was, and still is, simply just another piece of forum drama.

    In defense of G&T chat:

    I agree wholeheartedly with Karf. I appeared out of nowhere just a few weeks ago and popped into the chat to see what was going on, since, you know... That's what chat threads are for. So I said something (I forget what-I think it was something about how I had some delicious clam chowder.) and I and someone else had a delightful (if brief) discussion about chowder- I didn't feel at all threatened or alienated. It is a fast-moving topic and I would say although it's hard to keep up with, it's easy to post in since it's... Well, a chat. Usually when I see any nasty remarks directed at someone, they either appear to be well-deserved or an obvious joke. And I don't have to switch around forums because most of the topics that interest me that I keep up with are located in G&T. Yes, I am in fact that lazy. I think it's nice to have around, basically.

    Non-Existent Freezer on
    g2kc7.png
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Mai-Kero wrote:
    Why was Raijin demodded?
    He quit.

    It's complicated.

    Not that I'm privy to any details.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Mai-KeroMai-Kero Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Mai-Kero wrote:
    Why was Raijin demodded?
    He quit.

    It's complicated.

    Not that I'm privy to any details.

    I heard that he threatened to quit if they nuked GnT and then was demodded.

    Mai-Kero on
  • redstormpopcornredstormpopcorn Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    It should not be a dictatorship
    Yes, it should. Remember Social Devastation or AFrica? The issue isn't whether it is or should be a dictatorship, it's about being a benevolent dictatorship.

    redstormpopcorn on
    emot-kamina.gifBELIEVE IN YOU, WHO BELIEVES IN YOURSELF emot-kamina.gif
  • Conditional_AxeConditional_Axe Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    ceres wrote:
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    Imran wrote:
    Which begs the question, exactly what changes can we affect from this thread and what is going to be "This is how it works, the mods are discussing this"?
    To be totally honest, I don't think this thread is going to result in any forum changes.
    I'm going to repeat my sentiments that I don't think this is the way to run this forum. It should not be a dictatorship, and we, as the community and what keeps this place alive, should have a pretty good say into what goes down - not so much in the rules, but in the threads we make and the community bonds we share (the chat thread and the system megathreads, among other things).
    See, the fundamental probelm with this is that it's not a democracy. It's an oligarchy. It is allowed to remain by the grace of a few people that pay its bills. I know that everyone wants their turn to say something, and everyone wants things run as they see fit, but in reality there is another picture here. Just keep it in mind.
    this is like saying that the united states is only the congress.

    if it's a matter of money ruling things, I'll gladly open up my wallet to keep this forum functioning. a lot of other people would, too.

    so i think that's slightly disingenuous.

    Conditional_Axe on
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2006
    Mai-Kero wrote:
    Mai-Kero wrote:
    Why was Raijin demodded?
    He quit.

    It's complicated.

    Not that I'm privy to any details.

    I heard that he threatened to quit if they nuked GnT and then was demodded.
    K said that that was not true.

    Goomba on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Captain K wrote:
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    Imran wrote:
    Which begs the question, exactly what changes can we affect from this thread and what is going to be "This is how it works, the mods are discussing this"?
    To be totally honest, I don't think this thread is going to result in any forum changes.
    I'm going to repeat my sentiments that I don't think this is the way to run this forum. It should not be a dictatorship, and we, as the community and what keeps this place alive, should have a pretty good say into what goes down - not so much in the rules, but in the threads we make and the community bonds we share (the chat thread and the system megathreads, among other things).
    Well, I'm personally all for the userbase getting a significant say in what goes on. But it says right in the rules thread, in a post made in 2004, that G&T is a dictatorship, and I really don't think that's going to change. The final decision will always be made by a handpicked group of moderators and the forum admin.
    I know what it says, I just think it's a shitty way to run this place. Obviously, users shouldn't make the rules, but I think we should definitely get a say in what keeps the community "the community".

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited June 2006
    So... I just feel the need to make it clear that there are also those of us that exist that don't want to be involved in this kind of drama. Debating the semantics of what makes a forum interesting or uninteresting takes far more energy and time than simply just posting and creating your own entertainment.

    At the end of the day, those with power will always feel misunderstood and unappreciated by those without it, and those without power will always feel that they aren't being heard and could do things better. That's the human ego; the little part of the mind that says "what I'm doing is right, and everybody will come to understand that eventually."

    I'm still not even certain why all the feathers are being ruffled, but I for one, and I know there are more than a scant few others, would rather just see it quietly disappear since so far the end result seems to just be that people are getting mad at each other. I certainly have only my own personal enjoyment in mind, and not any pretense of the forum's greater glory or longevity, but I'm not even certain what the big deal is here or what a goal or even a compramise would be since both sides just seem to be yelling at the other to be more understanding.

    Okay, I'm starting to ramble and making less sense. In short, don't mistake the people who feel they don't want to get involved in this as agreeing with either side. We just exist peacefully holding our yaks on strings and are confident that things will more or less continue as they always have, even if some RADICAL NEW REVOLUTION IN G&T happens.

    C'est la vie.

    Aroduc on
  • Mai-KeroMai-Kero Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Goomba wrote:
    Mai-Kero wrote:
    Mai-Kero wrote:
    Why was Raijin demodded?
    He quit.

    It's complicated.

    Not that I'm privy to any details.

    I heard that he threatened to quit if they nuked GnT and then was demodded.
    K said that that was not true.

    Maybe forumers aren't the only people getting misinformed.

    Mai-Kero on
  • ImranImran Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    ceres wrote:
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    Captain K wrote:
    Imran wrote:
    Which begs the question, exactly what changes can we affect from this thread and what is going to be "This is how it works, the mods are discussing this"?
    To be totally honest, I don't think this thread is going to result in any forum changes.
    I'm going to repeat my sentiments that I don't think this is the way to run this forum. It should not be a dictatorship, and we, as the community and what keeps this place alive, should have a pretty good say into what goes down - not so much in the rules, but in the threads we make and the community bonds we share (the chat thread and the system megathreads, among other things).
    See, the fundamental probelm with this is that it's not a democracy. It's an oligarchy. It is allowed to remain by the grace of a few people that pay its bills. I know that everyone wants their turn to say something, and everyone wants things run as they see fit, but in reality there is another picture here. Just keep it in mind.
    My issue with this is that this oligarchy is being controlled just about as well as the country from which the word originated. You have your people trying to do well and you have the people who have no idea what they're doing and you have the leaders who are just outright and purposely antagonistic to everyone they see below them. So, the people trying to do well follow the antagonistic ones because they're the ones with experience and the people who have no idea what to do and just want to be liked by their superiors, so they go with them. "Screw everyone else, this is what I think is right because someone influential said so."

    Imran on
    nanasigsmallerrj4.jpg
  • Captain KCaptain K Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Mai-Kero wrote:
    Goomba wrote:
    Mai-Kero wrote:
    Mai-Kero wrote:
    Why was Raijin demodded?
    He quit.

    It's complicated.

    Not that I'm privy to any details.

    I heard that he threatened to quit if they nuked GnT and then was demodded.
    K said that that was not true.

    Maybe forumers aren't the only people getting misinformed.
    This kind of post is really not constructive at all, Mai-Kero.

    Captain K on
  • SaniusSanius Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Right, i'm going to give my 2 cents on Apo/Pheezer/Monoxide.

    I don't hate any of these people, really, but I dislike them. They can have their respective opinions, and I don't generally disagree with them, but they way they are brought out is what bothers me. I know Pheezer is a nice guy, but he's also a blatant asshole, and has shown to be one several times. I have a lot of experience with internet cliques and people like Apo and Pheezer, and with the latter, I have found it does not matter if the person can be nice if 80% of the time they are being dickheads about their thoughts and opinions.

    In another community, before this one, I have come across people like them, who were also in charge of what goes on, and I have grown to show hatred towards them because they could treat someone with disrespect and get away with it, and again, someone will come across and say "They're not so bad. Don't worry about it!"

    I say: That doesn't matter. If they're an asshole, they're an asshole. It doesn't matter if they have good means or they're just being rude to get their point across and don't really mean it. Not everyone knows these people or are friends with them, so don't expect a regular user to get Pheezer when he calls them a fucking douche for speaking against the moderators.

    Sanius on
  • Raijin QuickfootRaijin Quickfoot I'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2006
    Actually, I made an "If these changes happen I don't want to be a mod post." Whippy demodded me, I said my goodbyes in the chat thread. Whippy half remodded me, then I spoke with Syndalis about being prepared to move the 360 thread if necessary. He made a thread basically telling everyone that I told him a bunch of stuff, which is true, but I didn't do it meaning for him to make it public. That was an error in judgement on my behalf. Whippy removed my mod forum rights. End of stroy.

    Raijin Quickfoot on
  • AshcroftAshcroft LOL The PayloadRegistered User regular
    edited June 2006
    Why are certain mods apparently against mega threads like the 360 thread or big game threads? I don't see the problem, or why removing them would even be a discussion.

    Ashcroft on
    ZD98Zka.png
  • KrizKriz Registered User regular
    edited June 2006
    My main concern is the animosity that this is creating; rifts in the forums aren't fun.

    I don't like it when members (be they mods or otherwise) leave just because of stupid forum drama that could have been avoided.

    This is supposed to be a place of entertainment and friendly discussion.

    Kriz on
This discussion has been closed.