Honestly, I see the merit in moving away from jailing and towards temp banning. I think it would be interesting to poll where forumers stood on the matter, as to which they felt better served the forums as a whole. I'm not saying that's what any decision on the matter would be based on, but I think it'd be an interesting and probably important point in any discussion related to such a decision.
Broken bbcode is just as annoying to the rest of us as it is to the offender.
I support scrapping it as long as it doesn't lead to a rash of bans for extremely minor offenses.
The inability to quote is also irritating to all involved and not just the punished person. As is the weird formatting imposed. I'd suggest just disabling certain tags (stuff like images and the like) if that's possible and leaving the default formatting, quotes, and spoilers be. Of course, I don't know how it's implemented so don't know if that'd require code-reworking or just deleting a couple of variables.
Wait, why should a punishment be more convenient?
Inconveient for other people to read and understand.
Aroduc on
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Many mods have expressed feelings that the jail system doesn't really work the way we're intended.
Sometimes I use it just because it's there and, well, a jailing is less serious than a ban, mirite?
That's what needs a good rethinking.
I'd suggest tweaking exactly what a jailing entails.
*Keep spoiler bbcode intact (for everyone's sake), break all other bbcode. (Would require some recoding, but man would it be worth it.)
*Can't start new topics.
*May only post once per thread page (just off the top of my head, would probably be a bitch and a half to actually code).
I'd think that would be effective enough.
As stated elsewhere, BBcode is all or nothing in this iteration of the forums.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
[Deleted User] on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited December 2006
Um
I really think ya'll suggesting 'roations' have no real grasp on any reasoning to support it.
Most positions of responsibility do not have a frequent turnover/rollover rate.
Honestly.
If we were to use terms, there are a good many of us that have been here for less than four years at any rate.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Once post per thread page shouldn't be hard just make it once per 25 posts in the post count. That does seem a little excessive though as sometimes people are making genuine contributions even though they are jailed and might not be able to keep the conversation flowing. It'd be a pain to have one person always a page back, especially in the faster moving threads.
Personally, I'd like to see some standardization in sig size and rules between the sub forums. People unintentionally disrupt the flow by breaking rules or being called out on having a giant sig. Myabe that has already happened and I just haven't noticed...
On Page 2 a mod makes a comment that sends the thread off track. And then the same mod locks the thread a page later because it went off track. That seems problematic and belies a greater problem on the forums.
I would like to see the rules clearly stated. It doesn't seem fair to write the rules in a relaxed "dont' be a jackass and we're cool" sort of way and then hand out non-relaxed "you're banned for a week" punishment for breaking them. That makes for an uncomfortable forum environment. Either clearly state, enforce, and manage the rules or have a relaxed statement and enforcement of the rules.
I think clearly saying: "This is what you cannot do" in a manner that is not open to personal interpretation could enable the forums to have a much cleaner feel to them. When the mods jump between joking around and locking accounts it's hard to know what the rules are other than: "Don't do things the mods don't like...and we're not going to really tell you what those things are."
I'd also like to see bans and jailings restricted to the forums in which the offense occured, but I assume that is a coding issue.
Aren't you open to the possibility that it may be a good idea?
Oh yes. I just haven't seen a whole lot of arguments in favor of that theory.
Echo on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited December 2006
I'm going to be frank, it comes off to me as if you are suggesting this purely because there are people on the mod staff that you disagree with or just plain don't like, and you think a rotation would be a quick and easy way to get rid of them and install someone you're buddy buddy with.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I've never seen a forum with regular moderator rotation. I think that mods should only be booted/replaced when:
A. They resign.
B. They're doing an incredibly shitty job.
Switching every given period of time just seems like a recipe for disaster. On other large forums, I've seen different subforums with many, many many moderators. From what I've seen, every one interprets and enforces rules differently, even if it is the same ruleset.
Non-Existent Freezer on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Many mods have expressed feelings that the jail system doesn't really work the way we're intended.
Sometimes I use it just because it's there and, well, a jailing is less serious than a ban, mirite?
That's what needs a good rethinking.
I'd suggest tweaking exactly what a jailing entails.
*Keep spoiler bbcode intact (for everyone's sake), break all other bbcode. (Would require some recoding, but man would it be worth it.)
*Can't start new topics.
*May only post once per thread page (just off the top of my head, would probably be a bitch and a half to actually code).
I'd think that would be effective enough.
As stated elsewhere, BBcode is all or nothing in this iteration of the forums.
Would it then be possible to change, upon jailing, any text found in spoiler tags to a preset message, like "I've been jailed" or "spoiler deleted" or something embarrassing like "I like to pork donkeys"?
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited December 2006
I cannot think of a single circumstance where rotating mods would be a good idea.
Honestly, I see the merit in moving away from jailing and towards temp banning. I think it would be interesting to poll where forumers stood on the matter, as to which they felt better served the forums as a whole. I'm not saying that's what any decision on the matter would be based on, but I think it'd be an interesting and probably important point in any discussion related to such a decision.
Broken bbcode is just as annoying to the rest of us as it is to the offender.
I support scrapping it as long as it doesn't lead to a rash of bans for extremely minor offenses.
The inability to quote is also irritating to all involved and not just the punished person. As is the weird formatting imposed. I'd suggest just disabling certain tags (stuff like images and the like) if that's possible and leaving the default formatting, quotes, and spoilers be. Of course, I don't know how it's implemented so don't know if that'd require code-reworking or just deleting a couple of variables.
Wait, why should a punishment be more convenient?
Inconveient for other people to read and understand.
Then the poster can either tailor his posting while jailed for the options available, or people can acknowledge his posting as inconvenient and avoid it.
I've never seen a forum with regular moderator rotation. I think that mods should only be booted/replaced when:
A. They resign.
B. They're doing an incredibly shitty job.
Switching every given period of time just seems like a recipe for disaster. On other large forums, I've seen different subforums with many, many many moderators. From what I've seen, every one interprets and enforces rules differently, even if it is the same ruleset.
If is about the different interpretation, we wouldn't be worse than we are now.
I cannot think of a single circumstance where rotating mods would be a good idea.
Pure Hilarity? No, I agree that it would be a bad idea. More mods would be nice however, you can never have too many people banning and locking junk threads.
I'd also like to see bans and jailings restricted to the forums in which the offense occured, but I assume that is a coding issue.
this would encourage cliquishness and division in the forums, which I just don't see as a good idea. Also, banning someone only from SE++ for shock imagry doesn;t help G&T much.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Many mods have expressed feelings that the jail system doesn't really work the way we're intended.
Sometimes I use it just because it's there and, well, a jailing is less serious than a ban, mirite?
That's what needs a good rethinking.
I'd suggest tweaking exactly what a jailing entails.
*Keep spoiler bbcode intact (for everyone's sake), break all other bbcode. (Would require some recoding, but man would it be worth it.)
*Can't start new topics.
*May only post once per thread page (just off the top of my head, would probably be a bitch and a half to actually code).
I'd think that would be effective enough.
As stated elsewhere, BBcode is all or nothing in this iteration of the forums.
Would it then be possible to change, upon jailing, any text found in spoiler tags to a preset message, like "I've been jailed" or "spoiler deleted" or something embarrassing like "I like to pork donkeys"?
what happens when you unjail them?
also
mod rotation would encourage campaign-type bandwagons - "NADS FOR MOD," et all.
I've never seen a forum with regular moderator rotation. I think that mods should only be booted/replaced when:
A. They resign.
B. They're doing an incredibly shitty job.
Switching every given period of time just seems like a recipe for disaster. On other large forums, I've seen different subforums with many, many many moderators. From what I've seen, every one interprets and enforces rules differently, even if it is the same ruleset.
If is about the different interpretation, we wouldn't be worse than we are now.
Not really. Mods usually keep each other in check, and I think the last thing you need is a bunch of people coming in with their axes to grind taking chops off every 3 months with fewer and fewer people to say "Hey, wait, that's retarded."
A duck! on
0
Options
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I cannot think of a single circumstance where rotating mods would be a good idea.
Pure Hilarity? No, I agree that it would be a bad idea. More mods would be nice however, you can never have too many people banning and locking junk threads.
More mods has never been the answer. More coverage would be nice, but throwing a mod badge on 20 people in each subforum would only cause problems...not to mention the fact that I could not name 5 people right now I think should be a mod.
Many mods have expressed feelings that the jail system doesn't really work the way we're intended.
Sometimes I use it just because it's there and, well, a jailing is less serious than a ban, mirite?
That's what needs a good rethinking.
I'd suggest tweaking exactly what a jailing entails.
*Keep spoiler bbcode intact (for everyone's sake), break all other bbcode. (Would require some recoding, but man would it be worth it.)
*Can't start new topics.
*May only post once per thread page (just off the top of my head, would probably be a bitch and a half to actually code).
I'd think that would be effective enough.
As stated elsewhere, BBcode is all or nothing in this iteration of the forums.
Would it then be possible to change, upon jailing, any text found in spoiler tags to a preset message, like "I've been jailed" or "spoiler deleted" or something embarrassing like "I like to pork donkeys"?
That would require a lot of coding and likely entail a pretty large hit to the database any time someone with a particularly long post history was jailed. It's not really going to be an option.
Jailed users are going to be a pain in the ass. There's no way around that.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I've never seen a forum with regular moderator rotation. I think that mods should only be booted/replaced when:
A. They resign.
B. They're doing an incredibly shitty job.
Switching every given period of time just seems like a recipe for disaster. On other large forums, I've seen different subforums with many, many many moderators. From what I've seen, every one interprets and enforces rules differently, even if it is the same ruleset.
If is about the different interpretation, we wouldn't be worse than we are now.
So I was correct with my assumption then? Alright, we can move on.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
It's already been said, but let me repeat it: the mod crew isn't all buddy-buddy and watching each others' backs all the time. We respect each other, but noone on the crew is afraid to go "wtf did you do that for?" in the mod forum if they think something was stupidly handled.
Echo on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Of course, the people in power jumped at me when I first suggested it. This is only proof.
Are you not at all open to the possibility that it's simply a bad idea?
Where would we get all of these mods?
Do you really think that there are not two persons around the forums that are mod material?
Two people? Maybe. But how long would these 'terms' last? You need more than just two people. You need at least a dozen for one year's worth of administration.
And if new mods do have these growing pains, where they are hard on people, you're willing to go through that every time a term starts again? Say it takes two months for a mod to get used to being a mod and he cools down. If a term is six months, one third of his time as a moderator is spent potentially doing harm to the forum.
Do you really think that there are not two persons around the forums that are mod material?
I do. They're called Neo Rasa and Accualt and just got modded.
Is there a set number of G and T mods at any time? Because by my count two were added, but another one left and/or got demodded.
If so, should we not get two more G and T mods, or is my math off?
DeaconKnowledge on
My NEW Wii code - 5227 1968 3982 4139. My Wii needs your Miis! Please give generously!
Animal Crossing - 3566 5318 4585/2492 7891 0383 Deacon/Akisha in Crayon
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Would it then be possible to change, upon jailing, any text found in spoiler tags to a preset message, like "I've been jailed" or "spoiler deleted" or something embarrassing like "I like to pork donkeys"?
what happens when you unjail them?
By the time the jailing ends, the spoilers in question will likely have been relegated deep enough into the thread that nobody cares anymore, but I can't see any possible way to code the original message back in, so it's almost going to have to come back with the changed phrase still in place.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I really think ya'll suggesting 'roations' have no real grasp on any reasoning to support it.
Most positions of responsibility do not have a frequent turnover/rollover rate.
Honestly.
If we were to use terms, there are a good many of us that have been here for less than four years at any rate.
I think the idea of mod rotations is good for the same reason term limits are a good idea. And I think mods would be against the idea for a reason that the idea is supposed to fix: Clinging to their mod status as some sort of exalted title.
I think a rotation amid a pool of mods for a while would be a good idea to sort of shake things up and keep rule enforcement to a "by the books" approach rather than an "I'm a mod and I've been a mod for a while so what I say goes" approach. It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
I think it is probably just human nature for people to cling to titles such as "mod" as some sort of commentary on their social value to the forum. And that's problematic. Having a rotating group of mods would solve that problem and instead allow mods to be enforcers of rules rather than "the cool kids" on the forum.
Many mods have expressed feelings that the jail system doesn't really work the way we're intended.
Sometimes I use it just because it's there and, well, a jailing is less serious than a ban, mirite?
That's what needs a good rethinking.
I'd suggest tweaking exactly what a jailing entails.
*Keep spoiler bbcode intact (for everyone's sake), break all other bbcode. (Would require some recoding, but man would it be worth it.)
*Can't start new topics.
*May only post once per thread page (just off the top of my head, would probably be a bitch and a half to actually code).
I'd think that would be effective enough.
As stated elsewhere, BBcode is all or nothing in this iteration of the forums.
Would it then be possible to change, upon jailing, any text found in spoiler tags to a preset message, like "I've been jailed" or "spoiler deleted" or something embarrassing like "I like to pork donkeys"?
what happens when you unjail them?
also
mod rotation would encourage campaign-type bandwagons - "NADS FOR MOD," et all.
Instead of trying to filter the content of each post (too intensive for a forum this big I bet), they could filter based on the jailed flag. When the thread is processed, just swap out the text for all those kailed to say *jailed*. You still run into the problem that jailed people usually smarten up pretty quickly once they've been jailed and start contributing normally again.
I'd also like to see bans and jailings restricted to the forums in which the offense occured, but I assume that is a coding issue.
this would encourage cliquishness and division in the forums, which I just don't see as a good idea. Also, banning someone only from SE++ for shock imagry doesn;t help G&T much.
Between this, and Echo's observation about what happened when SE was split off, we have some really good social reasons not to do this, in addition to the technical problems it entails. Alpha can, in theory, block users from accessing specific forums at will, but it's permissions editing work and putting together a solution that moderators could access would take likely a significant amount of work, and giving moderators the ability to do it manually might not be possible with the permissions structure, and even if it is, it might open up a new way for us to fuck up the database and nobody really wants that.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Is there a set number of G and T mods at any time? Because by my count two were added, but another one left and/or got demodded.
Not really. If we feel we need more mods, we recruit more mods. And I think there's no such thing as "too many mods" until we're talking 15+ people. As of right now there are seven of us on the roster.
If so, should we not get two more G and T mods, or is my math off?
We start talking about new mods every time someone leaves the roster. Most of the time we conclude that we can manage with the current amount of mods.
Posts
Inconveient for other people to read and understand.
As stated elsewhere, BBcode is all or nothing in this iteration of the forums.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I really think ya'll suggesting 'roations' have no real grasp on any reasoning to support it.
Most positions of responsibility do not have a frequent turnover/rollover rate.
Honestly.
If we were to use terms, there are a good many of us that have been here for less than four years at any rate.
Where would we get all of these mods?
Well, someone (Thanatos?) made a good point, about that mods in training are bad mods.
But then, it is the only downside I see.
Aren't you open to the possibility that it may be a good idea?
Personally, I'd like to see some standardization in sig size and rules between the sub forums. People unintentionally disrupt the flow by breaking rules or being called out on having a giant sig. Myabe that has already happened and I just haven't noticed...
What about creating seperate forums for the consoles? I think it'll just lead to more fanboyism, but it's a thought.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1073840627
On Page 2 a mod makes a comment that sends the thread off track. And then the same mod locks the thread a page later because it went off track. That seems problematic and belies a greater problem on the forums.
I would like to see the rules clearly stated. It doesn't seem fair to write the rules in a relaxed "dont' be a jackass and we're cool" sort of way and then hand out non-relaxed "you're banned for a week" punishment for breaking them. That makes for an uncomfortable forum environment. Either clearly state, enforce, and manage the rules or have a relaxed statement and enforcement of the rules.
I think clearly saying: "This is what you cannot do" in a manner that is not open to personal interpretation could enable the forums to have a much cleaner feel to them. When the mods jump between joking around and locking accounts it's hard to know what the rules are other than: "Don't do things the mods don't like...and we're not going to really tell you what those things are."
I'd also like to see bans and jailings restricted to the forums in which the offense occured, but I assume that is a coding issue.
Oh yes. I just haven't seen a whole lot of arguments in favor of that theory.
A. They resign.
B. They're doing an incredibly shitty job.
Switching every given period of time just seems like a recipe for disaster. On other large forums, I've seen different subforums with many, many many moderators. From what I've seen, every one interprets and enforces rules differently, even if it is the same ruleset.
Back when SE++ was split from the on-topic side bans didn't carry over.
So people felt free to be asses on the other side without getting banned on the "home" side. It wasn't pretty at times.
Do you really think that there are not two persons around the forums that are mod material?
If is about the different interpretation, we wouldn't be worse than we are now.
Pure Hilarity? No, I agree that it would be a bad idea. More mods would be nice however, you can never have too many people banning and locking junk threads.
I'm not in power, and I realize that it's a bad idea.
I do. They're called Neo Rasa and Accualt and just got modded.
I can't imagine anyone seriously disagreeing with you here.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
this would encourage cliquishness and division in the forums, which I just don't see as a good idea. Also, banning someone only from SE++ for shock imagry doesn;t help G&T much.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
also
mod rotation would encourage campaign-type bandwagons - "NADS FOR MOD," et all.
Not really. Mods usually keep each other in check, and I think the last thing you need is a bunch of people coming in with their axes to grind taking chops off every 3 months with fewer and fewer people to say "Hey, wait, that's retarded."
More mods has never been the answer. More coverage would be nice, but throwing a mod badge on 20 people in each subforum would only cause problems...not to mention the fact that I could not name 5 people right now I think should be a mod.
Jailed users are going to be a pain in the ass. There's no way around that.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
So I was correct with my assumption then? Alright, we can move on.
Two people? Maybe. But how long would these 'terms' last? You need more than just two people. You need at least a dozen for one year's worth of administration.
And if new mods do have these growing pains, where they are hard on people, you're willing to go through that every time a term starts again? Say it takes two months for a mod to get used to being a mod and he cools down. If a term is six months, one third of his time as a moderator is spent potentially doing harm to the forum.
Is there a set number of G and T mods at any time? Because by my count two were added, but another one left and/or got demodded.
If so, should we not get two more G and T mods, or is my math off?
Animal Crossing - 3566 5318 4585/2492 7891 0383 Deacon/Akisha in Crayon
I think the idea of mod rotations is good for the same reason term limits are a good idea. And I think mods would be against the idea for a reason that the idea is supposed to fix: Clinging to their mod status as some sort of exalted title.
I think a rotation amid a pool of mods for a while would be a good idea to sort of shake things up and keep rule enforcement to a "by the books" approach rather than an "I'm a mod and I've been a mod for a while so what I say goes" approach. It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
I think it is probably just human nature for people to cling to titles such as "mod" as some sort of commentary on their social value to the forum. And that's problematic. Having a rotating group of mods would solve that problem and instead allow mods to be enforcers of rules rather than "the cool kids" on the forum.
Between this, and Echo's observation about what happened when SE was split off, we have some really good social reasons not to do this, in addition to the technical problems it entails. Alpha can, in theory, block users from accessing specific forums at will, but it's permissions editing work and putting together a solution that moderators could access would take likely a significant amount of work, and giving moderators the ability to do it manually might not be possible with the permissions structure, and even if it is, it might open up a new way for us to fuck up the database and nobody really wants that.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
They were old mods, I think. That is no rotation.
Anyway, that is the last I'm saying about it.
Not really. If we feel we need more mods, we recruit more mods. And I think there's no such thing as "too many mods" until we're talking 15+ people. As of right now there are seven of us on the roster.
We start talking about new mods every time someone leaves the roster. Most of the time we conclude that we can manage with the current amount of mods.
Obviously this isn't a democracy, and PA can do whatever they please.
(This isn't a personal axe, either. Just an observation.)