Community Notification Discussion!
By
Aura_Familia,
Posted on: 2007-10-05 16:59 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
i thought it might be nicer than than cluttering up actual discussion in the threads. let people who want to contribute post, let people who want to quickly weigh in, just yea or nay it. i dunno.
and sorry for bringing it back up from a couple pages ago.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or they could of said "No. They wouldn't add anything specific to the city, and if we get unicorns, we should have the classics. White, and the rarer black. The developers like to add things with a strong classical base, and colors other than white and black don't have such."
Ever other person who would of gone /no can then quote that guy and /agree 
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, they could have, but the point is that the /no contributed just as much to the conversation and the other respondents. None of them were ideal answers, as all could have provided quantifiers for thier positions. But under present guildlines only /no is being vilified.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. What if the OP had had the opposite opinion?
OP: I don't want the devs to add brightly-colored unicorns to CoH.
Responder 1: /unsigned
Responder 2: No
Responder 3: Yes
No, all of the sudden, Responder 1 and 2 need to elaborate, but 3 doesn't anymore? Should we create two threads for every idea, one for those in favor and one for those against, so that people can put "/signed" in the thread matching their opinion?
[ QUOTE ]
They're here for ego-[Censored]. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would this be a bad time to point out that "[Censored]" has been mod-censored several times in a post (which I now can't find and may have been deleted)?
[ QUOTE ]
Should we create two threads for every idea, one for those in favor and one for those against, so that people can put "/signed" in the thread matching their opinion?
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, theres a really snide side to me that really likes this suggestion.
While a certain one word post would have been sufficient in my opinion in answer to this current turn of events, I will actually give reason to my disagreement.
Firstly, I have been known to several times give a single worded answer to a thread. Such single word answers would be "yes", "no", "/signed", and the ever popular "/unsigned" (hadn't heard of /jranger before or that could have been fun too). The reason for this is not to pad my thread count as you can plainly see, no no no, the reason for this is because I either arrived at a thread a little late and all my opinions were already discussed at great length or the question proposed only requires a single answer. As someone else stated, I was taught to be concise and to the point unless an explanation is asked for.
Secondly, someone says something and you want to show this person your appreciation for a slight bit of humor, again with what I've been taught a simple "lol" will suffice. And "lol" is already self explanitory. It means you just laughed at something that you thought was funny, is there really a reason to post "lol that's funny"? That's just pointless and redundant, which is completely unneeded. And unneeded stuff should also be on the mod's little "watch list".
Lastly, if I feel I should justify any post with a one word answer it usually means that I don't feel I have to give an explanation. If I didn't feel like explaining or felt that an explanation is warranted I won't give one. But if I'm in the topic then I'm usually going to give my opinion as it somehow caught my attention.
I feel it is completely unfair and almost to the point of being rediculous to dictate to us how to post in the forums. That's not to say that flamer's and trolls should be allowed to go around an cause trouble. By all mines moderate the hell out of them. But they are usually easier to find and therefore easier to moderate. But I stand by my opinion that unless a post is a complete disreguard of proper etiquette it is completely rude to tell us we are in the wrong for our one word posts.
Find me ingame @Norlon
Winter ST
Well put, and amen brudda!
[ QUOTE ]
The EU community has actually had these kind of rules enforced pretty well over the last two years. I had assumed that due to the far larger size of the US forums, it would have been rather harder to enforce here so was ignored...
*applause for the new moderation plans*
spidermonster.
[/ QUOTE ]
rofl 
the EU community has only one Community Coordinator/Moderator since the last six months for three communties and people are leaving the EU boards cause it's a mess.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They're here for ego-[Censored]. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would this be a bad time to point out that "[Censored]" has been mod-censored several times in a post (which I now can't find and may have been deleted)?
[/ QUOTE ]
You have nothing to fear here... this is the "official" thread. Whichever mod who tried to smack this thread would get smacked themselves. 
Ashes to ashes,
Pheonyx
The Cape Radio
"It's good to have friends. Wish I did." - Troy Hickman
There's also the issue of context.
To conform to the new rules of "must-not-step-on-OP's-feelings", my stock answer of "No" is modified thusly:
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, no.
[/ QUOTE ]
After all, this may be a teen-rated game, but there are many many MANY adults playing it. As adults, we learn quick that "no" is a perfectly valid response. We also learn to deal with hearing it.
So... to the adults reading my answers, you've heard it before. You know what it means.
To the not-yet-adults who may not have heard this word enough to become acclimatized to it, and therefore may experience some ego trauma from it - this is as safe an environment as any to build up scar tissue. Trust me on this, you'll need it.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
"No" can be a valid response, but it is never a valid argument.
As I've said before, if you expect anyone to give any credence to your reply, you have to support your position. Saying "no" offers no argument to support your negative response. As such it is to be ignored.
The person posting in the affirmative has no requirement to explain his reply. He can simply say "yes" because the reasons would have been outlined in the original post or argument.
The person posting in the negative bears the responsibility of providing a counter-argument. Saying "no" is insufficient to this task.
[ QUOTE ]
The person posting in the negative bears the responsibility of providing a counter-argument. Saying "no" is insufficient to this task.
[/ QUOTE ]
As is, apparently, providing a plethora of reasons why "no" can be both a valuable contribution to a discussion and a perfectly legitimate reply.
I said, "no" can be a legitimate reply, but only if the post it is responding to does not pose an argument to which the "no" is in response.
For example:
I post, "Do you think Blasters should be nerfed?"
"No" is a perfectly acceptable response.
I post, "Blasters should be nerfed because of (Several reasons)."
"No" is not suffcient in this case because an argument has been presented.
Posting "Yes" would be sufficient. Saying "Yes" refers to the reasons given in the argument above, so reiterating them is unneccesary.
Simply saying "No" refers to nothing. Which reasons does it refer to, if any? Does it refer to the initial premise? There's no way to know. Having no point of reference, it is a meaningless response.
The sound and fury over the "no" issue may have sidetracked this thread. There are encouraging signs that the landfill that sometimes is these forums will begin to shrink. At least one TLDR post has been yanked since yesterday. (Isn't it wonderful that a poster takes the time to tell an OP that they didn't read his/her post? What goes thru they're heads, besides an impulse to pad?)
Don't care much about "no" responses, whether they come from lazy posters, spammers, post-count padders, or simply ppl who are hostile to what they see as "old/tired" ideas they're impatient w/.
The new posting policy is not meant to stifle debate, but to promote discussion. These are forums, not chat rooms. Any reduction of padding in its various forms is welcome. I wish the policy would be extended to the servers forums.
[ QUOTE ]
I said, "no" can be a legitimate reply, but only if the post it is responding to does not pose an argument to which the "no" is in response.
For example:
I post, "Do you think Blasters should be nerfed?"
"No" is a perfectly acceptable response.
I post, "Blasters should be nerfed because of (Several reasons)."
"No" is not suffcient in this case because an argument has been presented.
Posting "Yes" would be sufficient. Saying "Yes" refers to the reasons given in the argument above, so reiterating them is unneccesary.
Simply saying "No" refers to nothing. Which reasons does it refer to, if any? Does it refer to the initial premise? There's no way to know. Having no point of reference, it is a meaningless response.
[/ QUOTE ]
what he said!!!
[ QUOTE ]
I said, "no" can be a legitimate reply, but only if the post it is responding to does not pose an argument to which the "no" is in response.
Posting "Yes" would be sufficient. Saying "Yes" refers to the reasons given in the argument above, so reiterating them is unneccesary.
[/ QUOTE ]
However, this ignores the fact that we are not voting for suggestions, but we are supposed to discuss them.
Neither Yes nor No, unless accompanied by new arguments, are relevant in that light. Which takes the wind out of the sails of the 'I want to be able to answer No' proponents, as they attempted to argue that it would be 'unfair' to disallow No but allow Yes. Rather than attempting to argue that one one-word reply is more acceptable than another, just agree that neither helps with the discussion and that both should be avoided.
Nadira
(I probably should shut up and let this particular thread slide into oblivion now the initial shock of being moderated is wearing off of the frequent posters here)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said, "no" can be a legitimate reply, but only if the post it is responding to does not pose an argument to which the "no" is in response.
Posting "Yes" would be sufficient. Saying "Yes" refers to the reasons given in the argument above, so reiterating them is unneccesary.
[/ QUOTE ]
However, this ignores the fact that we are not voting for suggestions, but we are supposed to discuss them.
Neither Yes nor No, unless accompanied by new arguments, are relevant in that light. Which takes the wind out of the sails of the 'I want to be able to answer No' proponents, as they attempted to argue that it would be 'unfair' to disallow No but allow Yes. Rather than attempting to argue that one one-word reply is more acceptable than another, just agree that neither helps with the discussion and that both should be avoided.
Nadira
(I probably should shut up and let this particular thread slide into oblivion now the initial shock of being moderated is wearing off of the frequent posters here)
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, though I don't believe I ignored anything. As my examples illustrate, when a thread is about a question, Yes or No can be equally valid answers. It's when there is argument/discussion that No becomes invalid but Yes remains valid (though hardly descriptive).
"I [also] probably should shut up and let this particular thread slide into oblivion now the initial shock of being moderated is wearing off of the frequent posters here."
Hile!!
[ QUOTE ]
Hile!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Turboned.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hile!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Turbonecrod.
[/ QUOTE ]
Might be a bit late but can we get "You just want god mode" added to the list of banned responses.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
[ QUOTE ]
Our moderation team has been placed on high alert for all forums above the "For Fun" and "Servers" sections. By high alert they are searching for specific violations.
Refrain from such posts as :
[/ QUOTE ]
By high alert for those sectsion, do you ACTUALLY mean that basically the 'for fun' and server sections are now basically unmoderated ?
It certainly seems that way now.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
So has this policy helped?
New Global: @American Decoy
�You are hereby promoted to Tiglath_Pilesest� - Squez
�no, you rocketed past ddx. you got LIGHTHOUSE -evil musak-� - DDH_Hamenopi
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I didn't see this anywhere else in the thread. Would this be an acceptable solution to allowing various levels of feedback in the suggestion forum.
Make every suggestion thread also a Poll.
If someone would normally respond with a "yes", "/signed", or a "no", they can simply vote in the poll.
If someone wants to critique and add their constructive comments, they can reply to the thread.
If someone isn't getting many replies but a lot of "NO" votes, the OP could reply to the thread asking for someone to elaborate on their disagreeing vote.
Does that sound feasible? Both types of comments get to be left and both positive and negative opinions get to be expressed. No one needs to clutter up the thread with one word (or 367 word) responses that add nothing to the suggestion.
[/ QUOTE ]
This was suggested about 3-4 pages back. This forum software does not support polls only on select forums, to the best of my knowlege (I administered a set of forums that used this same software). If polls are turned on, they are turned on for every forum.
But, if a poll is acceptable to people, than yes/no answers should also be acceptable, wouldn't you think?
Storm
Serenity is not freedom from the storm, but peace amid the storm ...