No, mods shouldn't rotate. Especially throughout subforums. The subforums are way too specialized, and the mods are equally specialized. Since the rules are dissimilar the "breaking in" period would be hell for everyone here.
*shrugs* then standardize the rules across the entire PA forums.
The whole point of having SE++ and D&D be separate places is that they have different rules.
If everywhere is going to have the same rules, then why bother with subforums at all?
Isn't the idea of the recent changes to the forums to eliminate differences and animosity amonst the subforums?
the idea would be simple: A set of rules that applied to every forum, equally, without variation. Then on top of those, forum categories would be put up, to seperate discussion into places for ease of organization. The differences between the forums would be semantic, but that's what the admins want us to have now, isn't it?
I disagree. I don't think someone should be arbitrarily removed from a position they're doing well at just so someone else can have a go. There's no real benefit to mod rotation, and the negatives of having to deal with shitty new mods outweigh what positives there are.
What I'm about to say will probably be controversial, but what the hell...
The forum that some G&Ters created after the chat/mega thread ban was put in place came up in an SE topic recently. It was pointed out that one of the mods was posting there, and while I didn't read it myself I don't think this is a good idea, it pretty much undermines the original rule entirely.
/awaits criticism
headn00b on
Your sig was too tall.
-Thinatos
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
Woah, rotating moderators between sub-forums would be a trainwreck. For the moderators and for the forum members. I would be at least willing to try rotating moderators within each sub-forum, though, although I'm not sure how effective it would be.
In theory the way rules work is that each forum is supposed to have base rules (I think G+T was once considered the base on topic) with extra rules added to quell certain activities prevalent in that forum. At this point it I think the D&D rules are probably the most general.
There's this "G&T forum standard" term that I don't really like, though I'm guilty of using it myself at times. "On-topic forum standard" would be better.
Ideally there would just be one standard set of rules (sig sizes, generic "no harassment" rules etc) and then a description of what topics that particular subforum was for. I'm hoping we can make it evolve in that direction.
That's true for some forums (D&D, G+T, the game forums and AC all have fairly similar rulesets), but others have to maintain a certain flavor. H/A is a lot more strict, while Graphic Violence, for an on topic forum, is rather lax. It would be a little stifling to blanket the forums entirely.
A duck! on
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
What I'm about to say will probably be controversial, but what the hell...
The forum that some G&Ters created after the chat/mega thread ban was put in place came up in an SE topic recently. It was pointed out that one of the mods was posting there, and while I didn't read it myself I don't think this is a good idea, it pretty much undermines the original rule entirely.
/awaits criticism
I don't get what you're trying to say. Moderators shouldn't post in independent treehouses?
I disagree. I don't think someone should be arbitrarily removed from a position they're doing well at just so someone else can have a go. There's no real benefit to mod rotation, and the negatives of having to deal with shitty new mods outweigh what positives there are.
What of the mods that aren't doing a good job?
The mods pretty consistently keep an eye on each other, and people who are doing a bad job are generally brought to task over it. Your opinion of what is a bad job may not be the same, but the fact is that I've seen mods being raked over the coals in the mod forum hundreds of times.
I disagree. I don't think someone should be arbitrarily removed from a position they're doing well at just so someone else can have a go. There's no real benefit to mod rotation, and the negatives of having to deal with shitty new mods outweigh what positives there are.
What of the mods that aren't doing a good job?
That starts to get subjective, but there are some bad mods that hung around for a long time because nobody would do anything in the mod forum, so I kind of agree with you there. And there are some dead mods that should probably get pruned.
EDIT - Tube, maybe things are a bit different now, but for all the snide comments and gnashing of teeth back then I don't remember a whole lot of action.
What I'm about to say will probably be controversial, but what the hell...
The forum that some G&Ters created after the chat/mega thread ban was put in place came up in an SE topic recently. It was pointed out that one of the mods was posting there, and while I didn't read it myself I don't think this is a good idea, it pretty much undermines the original rule entirely.
How does it undermine it? I don't really care what moderators do on other forums, as long as it isn't specifically undermining these forums (for instance "OMG CAPTAIN K IS SUCH A STUPID BECAUSE OF THIS THING HE SAID IN THE MOD FORUM"
What I'm about to say will probably be controversial, but what the hell...
The forum that some G&Ters created after the chat/mega thread ban was put in place came up in an SE topic recently. It was pointed out that one of the mods was posting there, and while I didn't read it myself I don't think this is a good idea, it pretty much undermines the original rule entirely.
/awaits criticism
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you saying that mods shouldn't be posting there? What rule are they undermining?
What I'm about to say will probably be controversial, but what the hell...
The forum that some G&Ters created after the chat/mega thread ban was put in place came up in an SE topic recently. It was pointed out that one of the mods was posting there, and while I didn't read it myself I don't think this is a good idea, it pretty much undermines the original rule entirely.
/awaits criticism
I don't get what you're trying to say. Moderators shouldn't post in independent treehouses?
It just doesn't make sense in my head that a mod who presumably agreed on the rule change is then going against it on a forum that is openly against the rule and created because of it.
If I'm blowing this out of proportion tell me and I'll shut up.
What I'm about to say will probably be controversial, but what the hell...
The forum that some G&Ters created after the chat/mega thread ban was put in place came up in an SE topic recently. It was pointed out that one of the mods was posting there, and while I didn't read it myself I don't think this is a good idea, it pretty much undermines the original rule entirely.
/awaits criticism
I don't get what you're trying to say. Moderators shouldn't post in independent treehouses?
I hope that isn't what he's saying. The mods aren't paid. They aren't employees of PA. THey can do whatever they want under the context of free will.
Hell, I can think of a few mods who even made their own 'splinter' forums (albeit one did it as a joke of sorts).
Slungsolow on
fuck your forums, fuck your administrator and fuck dynagrip for getting away with the long troll.
What I'm about to say will probably be controversial, but what the hell...
The forum that some G&Ters created after the chat/mega thread ban was put in place came up in an SE topic recently. It was pointed out that one of the mods was posting there, and while I didn't read it myself I don't think this is a good idea, it pretty much undermines the original rule entirely.
/awaits criticism
I don't get what you're trying to say. Moderators shouldn't post in independent treehouses?
It just doesn't make sense in my head that a mod who presumably agreed on the rule change is then going against it on a forum that is openly against the rule and created because of it.
If I'm blowing this out of proportion tell me and I'll shut up.
I think you kind of are. Those are posters that the person is familiar with, so it's natural that they'll stay in contact. It's not like we banned everyone that posted at TTB back in the day, and that was a much bigger break.
A duck! on
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
That's true for some forums (D&D, G+T, the game forums and AC all have fairly similar rulesets), but others have to maintain a certain flavor. H/A is a lot more strict, while Graphic Violence, for an on topic forum, is rather lax. It would be a little stifling to blanket the forums entirely.
True, but look at it from the perspective of the changes made in the last few months. To many folk, what has been implemented -IS- considered stifiling, and to a great degree. The elimination of the G&T chat thread, the megathreads being broken into dozens of smaller threads, the assassination rule (which I agree with)... To many, these are considered a limitation on our posting rights. And for some in that many, they are sources of anger, due to the non-uniform application. To take an example: D&D is an on-topic forum, correct? Yet its chat thread still persists, and I swear it's more off-topic than the G&T one ever got.
The flavor of each forum can still exist just fine. I'm sure the SE++ community would survive with limitations on their sig size, or with a "no thread assassination" rule put into place. But when you have unique rules to the sub-forums, you no longer have one forum community. It's like.. Well, it's like people in different parts of a city having to live with different laws and enforcement of said laws. It creates disparities, and that leads to divisions.. Divisions that are hard to heal.
Even if it's only in word and not in deed, having everyone abide by the same set of uniform laws creates a forum identity. It helps heal the wounds, and it allows mods to do their jobs much more effectively without having to worry about differences in jurisdiction.
And to be frank, it's probably the simplest recommendation one can make in a thread about brainstorming forum policies. ;-)
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
What I'm about to say will probably be controversial, but what the hell...
The forum that some G&Ters created after the chat/mega thread ban was put in place came up in an SE topic recently. It was pointed out that one of the mods was posting there, and while I didn't read it myself I don't think this is a good idea, it pretty much undermines the original rule entirely.
/awaits criticism
I don't get what you're trying to say. Moderators shouldn't post in independent treehouses?
It just doesn't make sense in my head that a mod who presumably agreed on the rule change is then going against it on a forum that is openly against the rule and created because of it.
If I'm blowing this out of proportion tell me and I'll shut up.
That doesn't make any sense.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
That's true for some forums (D&D, G+T, the game forums and AC all have fairly similar rulesets), but others have to maintain a certain flavor. H/A is a lot more strict, while Graphic Violence, for an on topic forum, is rather lax. It would be a little stifling to blanket the forums entirely.
True, but look at it from the perspective of the changes made in the last few months. To many folk, what has been implemented -IS- considered stifiling, and to a great degree. The elimination of the G&T chat thread, the megathreads being broken into dozens of smaller threads, the assassination rule (which I agree with)... To many, these are considered a limitation on our posting rights. And for some in that many, they are sources of anger, due to the non-uniform application. To take an example: D&D is an on-topic forum, correct? Yet its chat thread still persists, and I swear it's more off-topic than the G&T one ever got.
The flavor of each forum can still exist just fine. I'm sure the SE++ community would survive with limitations on their sig size, or with a "no thread assassination" rule put into place. But when you have unique rules to the sub-forums, you no longer have one forum community. It's like.. Well, it's like people in different parts of a city having to live with different laws and enforcement of said laws. It creates disparities, and that leads to divisions.. Divisions that are hard to heal.
Even if it's only in word and not in deed, having everyone abide by the same set of uniform laws creates a forum identity. It helps heal the wounds, and it allows mods to do their jobs much more effectively without having to worry about differences in jurisdiction.
And to be frank, it's probably the simplest recommendation one can make in a thread about brainstorming forum policies. ;-)
I don't think you realize that posting here is a privilege, not a right.
Slungsolow on
fuck your forums, fuck your administrator and fuck dynagrip for getting away with the long troll.
It just doesn't make sense in my head that a mod who presumably agreed on the rule change is then going against it on a forum that is openly against the rule and created because of it.
If I'm blowing this out of proportion tell me and I'll shut up.
If the mods are going "god yeah, that rule is so stupid you should all just ignore it, it's just Mod A being a tool. God, I hate him so much" it's an issue. If they're just posting on a chat thread on another forum, who cares?
Tube on
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
It's like.. Well, it's like people in different parts of a city having to live with different laws and enforcement of said laws. It creates disparities, and that leads to divisions.. Divisions that are hard to heal.
I'd say it's more like different states of a country having their own legislation and police forces. :V
I think that my biggest recommendation is "no big drastic changes unless absolutely necessary." To clarify, this doesn't mean "undo past big changes." What's happened has happened, but as long as there's not a big problem happening, it doesn't seem like the wisest choice to impose new things on everyone. As much as the looseness of the rules in SE++ bugs me, the simple solution is not to go there, not tie them down with red tape just because I don't like it.
It's like.. Well, it's like people in different parts of a city having to live with different laws and enforcement of said laws. It creates disparities, and that leads to divisions.. Divisions that are hard to heal.
I'd say it's more like different states of a country having their own legislation and police forces. :V
I was literally just about to use this analogy when I saw you'd used it in the preview window.
Yeah, when we get the new forums, I think we'll probably have a baseline set of rules, and then each sub-forum will have its own set of rules, as well. It'll probably end up being very similar in practice to what we have now, it'll just look more organized.
I post a bit on the "Backup" forum, and I've repeatedly stated that I check my badge at the door. Nor do I let anything whatsoever that happens there carry over here unless it's relevant and on topic. I guess I'd have to take some action if I suddenly see a "LET'S FORUM RAID G&T" thread over there, but that's not very likely to happen, is it?
We could do with a little consistency in modding though. We seem to have gone from tempbanning everyone for 3 days for daring to suggest the opening post ought to be decent and spelled properly to this.
Sorry to maybe go back old ground here, but about NSFW stuff.
I've seen a couple of avatars depicting sex; like everyone's favourite Mario / Peach 1-Up animation.
This is obviously (I think) NSFW, and although it isn't a big ASCII penis, it's not something I want my boss to see, breaktime or not. I thought G&T was mainly supposed to be safe.
Just what is the rules here about work safety and G&T? Obviously, text stuff is OK because no-one can read it unless they are standing right next to you, but images are easier.
I don't want to piss on anyone's parade or sound like an uptight arse, just wondering where the line is, and if it should be made more obvious.
Sorry to maybe go back old ground here, but about NSFW stuff.
I've seen a couple of avatars depicting sex; like everyone's favourite Mario / Peach 1-Up animation.
This is obviously (I think) NSFW, and although it isn't a big ASCII penis, it's not something I want my boss to see, breaktime or not. I thought G&T was mainly supposed to be safe.
Just what is the rules here about work safety and G&T? Obviously, text stuff is OK because no-one can read it unless they are standing right next to you, but images are easier.
I don't want to piss on anyone's parade or sound like an uptight arse, just wondering where the line is, and if it should be made more obvious.
That's a very good point. It possible that sometimes the mods miss stuff (I don't tend to look at avatars), so if you think something is a problem then PM a mod. I think in the on topic forums we should definitely be erring on the side of caution.
Tube on
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
We could do with a little consistency in modding though. We seem to have gone from tempbanning everyone for 3 days for daring to suggest the opening post ought to be decent and spelled properly to this.
I do think it would be good to see a bit of standardization to the rules. I think the concept of "don't be a dick" is in every forum, but the scale to which every mod team (and even every mod) enforces it is different, and I'm sure that's a bit confusing. Still, you have to honest-to-God be a dick to get into trouble for it, but the wording on some rules could probably be a bit closer between forums. Also, it might be good to ditch some mods. I have nothing against either Bogey or Larlar, but I just don't see much of either of them (although I see more of Bogey). I'm sure there are some other SE folks that could step in (thinking of a fish here).
Just what is the rules here about work safety and G&T?
I'm not sure what the rules are for in-line images, but Apo once said "anything that is not porn can be put behind a NSFW link."
In this case, "shock images" fall under "porn."
What are people's opinions on those fucking obnoxious "scare" links? You know, the ones that appear innocuous, but have a ridiculously loud scream in them, with some form of scare image?
Larlar has a decent reason to be away. Since we don't have a problem with coverage in SE at the moment, I don't see the need to ditch Larlar, because there's no real benefit, he wouldn't need replacing and he's the greatest human being to walk the earth.
Posts
Isn't the idea of the recent changes to the forums to eliminate differences and animosity amonst the subforums?
the idea would be simple: A set of rules that applied to every forum, equally, without variation. Then on top of those, forum categories would be put up, to seperate discussion into places for ease of organization. The differences between the forums would be semantic, but that's what the admins want us to have now, isn't it?
The forum that some G&Ters created after the chat/mega thread ban was put in place came up in an SE topic recently. It was pointed out that one of the mods was posting there, and while I didn't read it myself I don't think this is a good idea, it pretty much undermines the original rule entirely.
/awaits criticism
-Thinatos
There's this "G&T forum standard" term that I don't really like, though I'm guilty of using it myself at times. "On-topic forum standard" would be better.
Ideally there would just be one standard set of rules (sig sizes, generic "no harassment" rules etc) and then a description of what topics that particular subforum was for. I'm hoping we can make it evolve in that direction.
I don't get what you're trying to say. Moderators shouldn't post in independent treehouses?
The mods pretty consistently keep an eye on each other, and people who are doing a bad job are generally brought to task over it. Your opinion of what is a bad job may not be the same, but the fact is that I've seen mods being raked over the coals in the mod forum hundreds of times.
EDIT - Tube, maybe things are a bit different now, but for all the snide comments and gnashing of teeth back then I don't remember a whole lot of action.
How does it undermine it? I don't really care what moderators do on other forums, as long as it isn't specifically undermining these forums (for instance "OMG CAPTAIN K IS SUCH A STUPID BECAUSE OF THIS THING HE SAID IN THE MOD FORUM"
It just doesn't make sense in my head that a mod who presumably agreed on the rule change is then going against it on a forum that is openly against the rule and created because of it.
If I'm blowing this out of proportion tell me and I'll shut up.
-Thinatos
I hope that isn't what he's saying. The mods aren't paid. They aren't employees of PA. THey can do whatever they want under the context of free will.
Hell, I can think of a few mods who even made their own 'splinter' forums (albeit one did it as a joke of sorts).
I think you kind of are. Those are posters that the person is familiar with, so it's natural that they'll stay in contact. It's not like we banned everyone that posted at TTB back in the day, and that was a much bigger break.
True, but look at it from the perspective of the changes made in the last few months. To many folk, what has been implemented -IS- considered stifiling, and to a great degree. The elimination of the G&T chat thread, the megathreads being broken into dozens of smaller threads, the assassination rule (which I agree with)... To many, these are considered a limitation on our posting rights. And for some in that many, they are sources of anger, due to the non-uniform application. To take an example: D&D is an on-topic forum, correct? Yet its chat thread still persists, and I swear it's more off-topic than the G&T one ever got.
The flavor of each forum can still exist just fine. I'm sure the SE++ community would survive with limitations on their sig size, or with a "no thread assassination" rule put into place. But when you have unique rules to the sub-forums, you no longer have one forum community. It's like.. Well, it's like people in different parts of a city having to live with different laws and enforcement of said laws. It creates disparities, and that leads to divisions.. Divisions that are hard to heal.
Even if it's only in word and not in deed, having everyone abide by the same set of uniform laws creates a forum identity. It helps heal the wounds, and it allows mods to do their jobs much more effectively without having to worry about differences in jurisdiction.
And to be frank, it's probably the simplest recommendation one can make in a thread about brainstorming forum policies. ;-)
That doesn't make any sense.
are
not
discussing
the
chat
thread
under
any
circumstances
I don't think you realize that posting here is a privilege, not a right.
-Thinatos
If the mods are going "god yeah, that rule is so stupid you should all just ignore it, it's just Mod A being a tool. God, I hate him so much" it's an issue. If they're just posting on a chat thread on another forum, who cares?
I've moved to post a bit in D&D, I helped with the opening of ODAM, and a bit in the WoW forum.
But you are right, i'm mostly a G&T poster.
As we've seen, it results in epic bitchfests.
Yeah, when we get the new forums, I think we'll probably have a baseline set of rules, and then each sub-forum will have its own set of rules, as well. It'll probably end up being very similar in practice to what we have now, it'll just look more organized.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1073838829&highlight=
I don't get it.
I've seen a couple of avatars depicting sex; like everyone's favourite Mario / Peach 1-Up animation.
This is obviously (I think) NSFW, and although it isn't a big ASCII penis, it's not something I want my boss to see, breaktime or not. I thought G&T was mainly supposed to be safe.
Just what is the rules here about work safety and G&T? Obviously, text stuff is OK because no-one can read it unless they are standing right next to you, but images are easier.
I don't want to piss on anyone's parade or sound like an uptight arse, just wondering where the line is, and if it should be made more obvious.
so much for civil discussion and respectful constructive criticism.
Read the rules of the thread. No discussing the chat thread
That's a very good point. It possible that sometimes the mods miss stuff (I don't tend to look at avatars), so if you think something is a problem then PM a mod. I think in the on topic forums we should definitely be erring on the side of caution.
I don't follow, that thread was made before those policies were enacted.
What are people's opinions on those fucking obnoxious "scare" links? You know, the ones that appear innocuous, but have a ridiculously loud scream in them, with some form of scare image?
The rules are different for Larlar. Shame on you.