Community Notification Discussion!

Well, he didn't reply to every suggestion that way, just the ones he felt were stupid. And often when asked to elaborate on why he said no, he would.

---

"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict

[ QUOTE ]
Well, he didn't reply to every suggestion that way, just the ones he felt were stupid. And often when asked to elaborate on why he said no, he would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I've seen completely the opposite of what you describe. Every reply to a suggestion was "no". The only more elaborate replies were when people got onto him about it, then it wasn't to expand on his supposed objection to the post, it was to protest his right to post however he wants or otherwise argue with people.

---

Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, he didn't reply to every suggestion that way, just the ones he felt were stupid. And often when asked to elaborate on why he said no, he would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I've seen completely the opposite of what you describe. Every reply to a suggestion was "no". The only more elaborate replies were when people got onto him about it, then it wasn't to expand on his supposed objection to the post, it was to protest his right to post however he wants or otherwise argue with people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, I've seen people that derail entire threads to attack his right to post "no", rather than continue to discuss their own or his opinion.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet if you're not breaking the rules, you've got nothing to worry about

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, tell that to jranger who didn't break any rules.
These new "/jranger is bannable" rules were invented to give them a reason to have him banned.

Search his posts. He doesn't insult, he doesn't flame he simply replies "no" to a lot of bad ideas. There was NOTHING in the rules stateing he couldn't do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he replied "no" to ALL the ideas. I don't see how anyone can argue that he was being anything but a troll.

Seriously, when did half of this forum have lobotomies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when replying No to something meant anything else than disgreeing with the OP? What is wrong with that? And what is wrong with disagreeing with EVERY darn suggestions that were posted? I see no problem with that. He posted his own disagreement and never were any of you disallowed to simply overlook his reply and move along. How could he harm anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with it is he was very OBVIOUSLY doing it to troll. And I don't believe for one second that you don't know that yourself. JRanger was a troll. Period. He did it because it annoyed people, and if you followed his post history, there is absolutely NO way you can deny that. He got off on the attention he got from it, and it finally came back to bite him in the butt. He's not a martyr or a victim. He was a useless nuisance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet again, what was he doing wrong? How come posting a NO answer harms anyone or anything? Anyone could just let it go and move on. We will never know for sure if he was only doing it maliciously or he was indeed against the idea posted for reasons he wouldnt explain. Only him JRanger can answer this.

---

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, let me put it this way:

If PWNZ goes away, every poster will probably go on a rampage with the express purpose of getting themselves banned. Read: not pleasant for the mods.

I doubt the forum will be going away.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the real world thats akin to blackmail

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't making a threat or something, that's just what would naturally happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

and the loss would be...?

---

So you see nothing wrong with what Sixy did?

OMG YOU'RE CONDONING IT REPORTED PMED

---

[ QUOTE ]
So you see nothing wrong with what Sixy did?

OMG YOU'RE CONDONING IT REPORTED PMED

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of expected at least one reaction like Sixy's.

The followups by (only 1 or 2) other PWNZ members acting like it was acceptable made the whole group look worse than they are though.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you see nothing wrong with what Sixy did?

OMG YOU'RE CONDONING IT REPORTED PMED

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of expected at least one reaction like Sixy's.

The followups by (only 1 or 2) other PWNZ members acting like it was acceptable made the whole group look worse than they are though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, although it was a wee bit more than 1 or 2 (more like 5 or 6 from what I saw before a certain thread, which turned blatantly congratulatory, was deleted). And I do think those direct supporters should join _Sixy_ in Banville.

---

Even if there was someone who 'directly supported' it, which cannot be proven or disproven by either of us, I HIGHLY doubt that it was sincere. But you know us PWNZers, out to ruin everyone's day for realz.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you see nothing wrong with what Sixy did?

OMG YOU'RE CONDONING IT REPORTED PMED

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of expected at least one reaction like Sixy's.

The followups by (only 1 or 2) other PWNZ members acting like it was acceptable made the whole group look worse than they are though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, although it was a wee bit more than 1 or 2 (more like 5 or 6 from what I saw before a certain thread, which turned blatantly congratulatory, was deleted). And I do think those direct supporters should join _Sixy_ in Banville.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gonna break one of my own recommendations and give qualifications here to justify my point of view. Why my viewpoint is valid or should at least be considered on this:

I was the 'social' admin (as opposed to moderator) for the A-Kon board for several years during which it had an active and regular user base of well over 500 people. (Registered was, of course, far far above this). Among other things I was largely responsible for instituting the multi-tiered mod system they moved to.

<ul type="square">[*]Mass bans beget (pointless) retaliation from those who would otherwise stay quiet. [*]Small numbers of bans of the actually influential and most visible people are soon forgotten by most of the populace while still showing that the rules are taken seriously.[*]Simply put, these boards are not staffed properly to handle a truly justified moderation style for the size of the userbase. [*]The past record of the Community staff will increase the sense of persecution in any mass banning. As Ex has interacted with PWNZ on a regular basis (including some posts which I imagine would result in temp bans if carried out by a normal user in a different forum) a mass banning action would strike many users as unjustified and as a sudden change in effetive policy without announcement.[/list]
I'm not saying that I'm right, but then I've always had issues with how our 'Community' staff interacts with the populace at large here and I can see a group banning making it an issue for others instead of just for those of us who have a jacked up form of 'White Knight' syndrome.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, let me put it this way:

If PWNZ goes away, every poster will probably go on a rampage with the express purpose of getting themselves banned. Read: not pleasant for the mods.

I doubt the forum will be going away.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the real world thats akin to blackmail

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't making a threat or something, that's just what would naturally happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then that speaks volumes about people posting there and is in itself a good reason for the forum to go away.

If the posters are that childish and undiciplined that they would think a rampage good then yes banning is the correct response.

---

But it's MY sadistic mechanical monster and I'm here to make sure it knows it. - Girl Genius

List of Invention Guides

None of us would think it's "good". But at that point, none of us would care.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, he didn't reply to every suggestion that way, just the ones he felt were stupid. And often when asked to elaborate on why he said no, he would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I've seen completely the opposite of what you describe. Every reply to a suggestion was "no". The only more elaborate replies were when people got onto him about it, then it wasn't to expand on his supposed objection to the post, it was to protest his right to post however he wants or otherwise argue with people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you actually looked at his post history? I had to go pretty far back just to find three /no's, and I went through plenty of perfectly reasonable discussion on the way. Besides, Trolling means trying to get people riled up into a flame war. Simply disagreeing with someone isn't remotely close to trolling. The fact that a small number of people made an enormous stink about it doesn't mean it was trolling. If he is a folk hero, it's because some people are trying to make a martyr out of him. The guy isn't some Rosie Parks, who can turn the word no into a movement that defines a generation. He was just disagreeing with people in a manner which did not indicate any respect or appreciation for the OP. That doesn't make him a hero, but it doesn't make him a serial killer either. Or a troll.

---

Avatar: "Cheeky Jack O Lantern" by dimarie

On these boards, doing anything but stroking eachothers' egos is trolling Peterpeter. You should know that by now.

---

Ill miss shooting stupid ideas down by saying "/JRanger"

Ah oh well. whatever improves the forums, I guess!

---

In order to ensure that the dissemination of information on these boards can be done both safely and effectively, I have developed templated responses that one can use to voice an agreement or disagreement about an issue.

These templates have the following benefits:

1. They are not simple "yes" or "no" responses.

2. They have been analyzed for words violating the forum rules, and should be safe to use. If any words or phrases are found violating the forum rules, I will add the offender to my violation analyzer, and update the templates to fix the problem. Hopefully, with enough usage, these templates can become Board Certified Responses (BCRs).

3. No flame wars. If we stick to using templated responses, and none of the responses contain flames, there can be no flame wars.

4. Easily identifiable rule violators. How do we find violators? Just search for anybody not using an approved template. Even though it would not be technically against the rules not to use a template, why would anybody who had anything valid to say not use them?

5. Equality. Even with simple "yes" or "no" responses, there can be differences in the style of a reply. Inequality breeds resentment; resentment breeds hostility; and hostility breeds personal attacks. The templates ensure that no one person's response is "better" than any other. They promote uniformity and equality for all paying subscribers.

AGREEMENT
I agree (choose one):
[ ] wholeheartedly
[ ] in part
[ ] somewhat
[ ] slightly

with your assertions because (choose all that apply):
[ ] your points are valid
[ ] I am in favor of the idea
[ ] a dev has responded in favor of the idea
[ ] the idea has merit and is feasible

Your ideas are (choose one):
[ ] not unique, but I support them nonetheless
[ ] new and fresh, and will hopefully be considered by the devs
[ ] going to be implemented by the devs, for which I am grateful

DISAGREEMENT
I disagree (choose one):
[ ] wholeheartedly
[ ] in part
[ ] somewhat
[ ] slightly

with your assertions because (choose all that apply):
[ ] your points are invalid
[ ] I am against the idea
[ ] a dev has responded against the idea
[ ] while the idea has merit, it is not feasible

Your ideas are (choose one):
[ ] not unique, and have been mentioned many times before
[ ] at least new and fresh, despite the fact that I don't agree with them
[ ] going to be implemented by the devs, despite my objections

---

I don't know whether to lol or *facepalm*.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Ill miss shooting stupid ideas down by saying "/JRanger"
Ah oh well. whatever improves the forums, I guess!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's all be creative here. If we can't use /JRanger, then maybe we can use /RJanger? Or how about /REgnarj? There's also /GNarjer. Plenty of stuff to choose from. If one word responses aren't good enough, then about 15 applications of any combination of these should suffice, right?

Yeah, I thought so.

Asking people to behave themselves is one thing. Telling people they should post a certain way or post a certain minimum required number of words or post a required argument or what have you is just one big slippery slope. If we keep going that way, we may end up with people being prosecuted because they didn't post the correct way.

Far as I'm concerned, self-moderation is as much about what you post as how you can handle what other people post. But we never see our moderators asking us to not overreact. They're always asking us to watch what we post. Let's hope we'll get fewer people banned in THIS iteration of the exact same thread a second time over.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ill miss shooting stupid ideas down by saying "/JRanger"
Ah oh well. whatever improves the forums, I guess!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's all be creative here. If we can't use /JRanger, then maybe we can use /RJanger? Or how about /REgnarj? There's also /GNarjer. Plenty of stuff to choose from. If one word responses aren't good enough, then about 15 applications of any combination of these should suffice, right?

Yeah, I thought so.

Asking people to behave themselves is one thing. Telling people they should post a certain way or post a certain minimum required number of words or post a required argument or what have you is just one big slippery slope. If we keep going that way, we may end up with people being prosecuted because they didn't post the correct way.

Far as I'm concerned, self-moderation is as much about what you post as how you can handle what other people post. But we never see our moderators asking us to not overreact. They're always asking us to watch what we post. Let's hope we'll get fewer people banned in THIS iteration of the exact same thread a second time over.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I thought this was way worse.

Jeeze people, relax.

---

[ QUOTE ]
/RJanger

[/ QUOTE ]
Your post is made of win and lulz.

---

AGREEMENT
I agree (check one):
[XX] wholeheartedly
[ ] in part
[ ] somewhat
[ ] slightly

with your assertions because (check all that apply):
[ ] your points are valid
[XX] I am in favor of the idea
[ ] a dev has responded in favor of the idea
[ ] the idea has merit and is feasible

Your ideas are (choose one):
[XX] not unique, but I support them nonetheless
[ ] new and fresh, and will hopefully be considered by the devs
[ ] going to be implemented by the devs, for which I am grateful

---

I just got a radical freakin' idea.

If you don't like the way people are responding to your idea, out them on Ignore! That way, the next time you come up with a crappy idea that everyone's already heard before, the only replies that will ever get through are the ones that praise you as the second coming of Christ, heralding your presence as a precursor to a pervasive dimensional shift to a world where unicorns fart rainbows and pee maple syrup.

And we can put YOU on Ignore. And everyone's happy.

---

;salute
;dance

I agree 100% with the OP. It's about time we have some constructive discussion going without worrying that your thread will be crapped all over by negative people who don't have anything to add but want to be seen injecting their insipid and pointless opinion without backing it up.

Yes, I took the time to type this properly. A thread of this magnitude deserved it.

---

Because adding a dissenting opinion to a discussion thread is 'not adding anything.'

---

[ QUOTE ]
;salute
;dance

I agree 100% with the OP. It's about time we have some constructive discussion going without worrying that your thread will be crapped all over by negative people who don't have anything to add but want to be seen injecting their insipid and pointless opinion without backing it up.

Yes, I took the time to type this properly. A thread of this magnitude deserved it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to note that defining words in your posts is condescending and indicates exactly the kind of posting you just claimed to be against. Sir, this was a complete failure at a constructive post.

---