Yes, the victim trend is becoming rather strong, isn't it.

Except the last time a similar thread was made, people screamed about the same thing, offering little commentary or the repeated commentary about how the people supportive of the thread were being "sensationalist" or "a vocal minority". Even though me and j8cob were banned unjustly, people decided to attack our character and claim we were just whiny babies in the spotlight despite the fact that we weren't the ones who made the thread.

And it's happening again. Rather than attack the contents of the thread people come in and attack reputations.

It's akin to me telling anyone who disagreed with me or parts of the thread as "half-wits who blindly follow orders and can't think for themselves". It doesn't add much to the conversation. (and is simply jumping to hasty conclusions made with little to no evidence)

If you're just going to sit here and make baity replies then just leave. Other people have stated the same viewpoint more logically.

Yes, we know you don't like this thread, or many of the suggestions made. If so, say your piece and be done with it. Stop going on a tangent about your supposed view of any of the people supportive of this thread. We know already, you're just repeating the same rhetoric over and over again. It's not as if you've added much to the conversation with that quote.

<Snipped quote by ArenaSnow>

Except the last time a similar thread was made, people screamed about the same thing, offering little commentary or the repeated commentary about how the people supportive of the thread were being "sensationalist" or "a vocal minority".

And it's happening again.

If you're just going to sit here and make baity replies then just leave. Other people have stated the same viewpoint more logically.

Yes, we know you don't like this thread, or many of the suggestions made. If so, say your piece and be done with it. Stop going on a tangent about your supposed view of any of the people supportive of this thread. We know already, you're just repeating the same rhetoric over and over again.

But see, the only one in your little core who seems to be taking the point of this thread seriously is the OP.

I don't agree with all of what Odin posts, and I do consider him biased to some degree, but he's actually bothered to advance the topic, while you & co are simply crying victim and not really doing anything in the discussion. I wouldn't consider Odin's post to be sensationalist, but I would say your post can fit that distinction. By going on and making this thread the same as the last by continuing this silly little conversation, you're lending validity to those who automatically dismiss you because they already have a bias from the last time.

@ArenaSnow

Except I've cleared up some misunderstandings about my actions, if you went back a few pages. I've engaged with Rilla and such. I've also replied to melonhead.

You can dismiss what we say, i really don't care. I'm not going to stop you from doing that.

But you can't claim

"Yes, the victim trend is becoming rather strong, isn't it."

Is a reasonable or logical response to advance the thread.

>serious thread is started
>people who disagree with the premise contribute nothing and only make hostile or bait posts
>people who agree try to argue or reason with the hostile posters
>"You're just crying victim."
>"Lending validity to those who dismiss you."

???

@ArenaSnow

Except I've cleared up some misunderstandings about my actions, if you went back a few pages. I've engaged with Rilla and such. I've also replied to melonhead.

You can dismiss what we say, i really don't care. I'm not going to stop you from doing that.

But you can't claim

"Yes, the victim trend is becoming rather strong, isn't it."

Is a reasonable or logical response to advance the thread.

Nor are the preceding posts that triggered the comment.

If you & co refuse to see why the stance and attitude you adapt is causing you to be taken less seriously, it's not my issue. Just don't be surprised when the same people will continue not to take you seriously.

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>

Nor are the preceding posts that triggered the comment.

If you & co refuse to see why the stance and attitude you adapt is causing you to be taken less seriously, it's not my issue. Just don't be surprised when the same people will continue not to take you seriously.

Ah, the entire "I didn't start it but I'll continue it anyway".

Please. The entire reasoning behind "They started it first" is a poor excuse to commit the same behavior. Should I start keying someones car because they did it to mine first? No.

Don't be surprised when I don't take you seriously when you make juvenile excuses. If you actually have something substantial to comment, I'm fine with taking you seriously then.

Don't be surprised when I close this thread because it turned into a pissing contest, rather than being anything near a productive discussion.

If we're gonna be completely real here, we don't need to threaten the entire thread because of one bad apple attacking the rest of the bunch.

If we're gonna be completely real here, we don't need to threaten the entire thread because of one bad apple attacking the rest of the bunch.

Fair enough. But let this serve as a warning to everyone for the event of potential future derailments.

Everyone try to stay on topic and let's not get into individual nitpicking too much. That just serves to irritate and does nothing productive.

Yes, the victim trend is becoming rather strong, isn't it.

We're getting complaints about this thread becoming toxic when someone's disagreed with.

A goal of any of these threads seemed to be, "Let's not get it closed for being out of control."

Just a friendly warning it may be starting to shade in that direction.

Not trying to moderate this thread or anything, but I never said that Ruby didn't have a point when she said this (and neither did J8cob as far as I can see, but I could be wrong). We were able to do quite a lot based on the first thread that Odin created such as helpful guides and nudge Mahz who has since fixed the PM system and added new tags as well.

Now, I don't necessarily stand by the idea that this thread or any of these threads will do anything, but I would like to kindly ask if you could either offer constructive criticism and opinions or simply leave it be. Thank you kindly in advanced.

I don't agree with all of what Odin posts, and I do consider him biased to some degree, but he's actually bothered to advance the topic, while you & co are simply crying victim and not really doing anything in the discussion.

I must have missed where you contributed to the conversation.

.

I don't know, are we doing correctly to what the purpose of the page is? For all I see is a group of people mocking each other. Some say other are guilty, some defend themselves and made others look guilty. I subscribe this to see change but it seem that all I see is another " In Defense of Genre 2" Mk 3.

You're new to these threads, aren't you? This is the way it goes when not enough people chime in and give their suggestions and instead it's the same four people arguing. The moment I noticed nobody else was suggesting things, I knew it'd go down this road. I'll quote from someone unaffiliated with the current discussion:

Its a funny phenomenon. People think all is okay. Once a few group of people start speaking out with well reasoned criticisms and evaluation of the system, the others then associate you as some kind of psychopaths out to cause some damage to the community-- disregarding or stepping aside actual arguments that should be considered.

The issue I see here is that people are quick to throw away all critiques because they disagree with a few of the others. Or they are going hunting for reasons not to do certain things (''what we have now is FINE! We don't need to improve it!'') just for the sake of argument. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in discussing the few ideas that are there and seeing what other people think of that.

I think that point got lost in translation somewhere and we ended up with a back and forth. It's not surprising but a bit sad perhaps.

.

@catchamber My mans, you realize that 99% of the questions you asked are answered in the front page? Like, instead of always saying 'hey, can you give me source for x? hurrrr' you could actually bother to read and see that the answer to the question 'who suggested it' can be found in the link on the first post.

So no, I can't be arsed to help you because I would rather not answer questions that could be answered if the person asking it took five seconds out of their time to look for answers themselves rather than relying on others to do their work.

This might have been suggested before but would the implementation of specific section mods be an idea worth considering? Sort of in the same vein as the Arena Mod where you have people who do a lot of roleplaying in one area become a sub-mod for that section. IE is Jimmy101 does a lot of Casual RPing than he can put his name forward to be a Casual RP sub-mod and users could vote for him or something like that.

Their jurisdiction would only be to the area they're so they Jimmy101 the Casual submod couldn't go into Free or Advanced and exercise his power there. Of course this could lead to people throwing around their new found weight in that area but the actual mods would always be one step above them and have final say in what the submods do, overruling their judgement in place of their own.

This concept would effectively tackle a few different problems in one fell swoop. You would have more active mods since it would be people who are actively and constantly RPing in that section moderating them. Plus their experience in that section means they could have some sort of specialty in that area? (Not so sure on that bit but oh well). It would give players a more direct way of contact someone with power in the event its needed without waiting on a full mod to just happen to wander into their thread.

I mean, I'm probably going to start a new flame war with this, but I'm gonna post anyways.

That doesn't actually solve issues; it opens the window to some of the same problems that other sites have collapsed from handling.

Jimmy101 has a group of friends in the Casual section. Lets assume most of the casual section roleplays, and would be pretty halfhearted when nominating mods outside of a whim of the moment decision (like most elections, really) and so Jimmy submits his name and the noisy group of friends says "JIMMY! JIMMY!" and other people say "meh, just don't mess with my RP and we're OK." Jimmy roleplays a lot, but shall we say he doesn't GM too often. Jimmy's friends vote and maybe drag a few of their friends in to say yes, and nobody really cares to say no.

What you now have is a mod backed by Jimmy's friends who talks a good game about "yes, I can totally handle this" and then does a lackluster job because while he's fairly popular and a good roleplayer, he has little to no administration experience, and has a tendency to skip to banning. Jimmy causes problems, and while other mods keep him in line, Jimmy might not want to be kept in line or care. He has friends, and he draws on those friends to say that the community voted for him, and that the other mods should fuck off (in so many words). Some people might talk to Jimmy, and Jimmy gives them an answer that the other mods wouldn't agree with, but Jimmy has authority and his word is trusted to be true, and so the users who contacted Jimmy in PM don't bother to continue the discussion further.

Thus began the moderation period of Jimmy, held in place because democracy, who really isn't a good moderator but because he has friends and he roleplays a lot, he gets the job anyways. This is far from an impossible scenario. In an election on a small site, people can be propelled by their friends and remain unopposed because not enough people really care or know enough about the job or person (it's not "everyone knows everyone" here) to say "hmm, he might not be the best noderator". People can start off looking like OK mods, but they do a lackluster job and mess things up in the PM box, and they keep the job because they were voted in and that is the crutch that is used for when higher mods say "you're not doing a very good job".

Moving beyond the hypothetical scenario, is there really a point to section mods? Are there so many issues that a few more general mods couldn't handle deletion requests/minor issue resolutions that seem to be most of what goes on with this site outside of this subforum? What happens when the section mod is the only one online and goes into another section, only to find "...right, I don't have power... uh... wait for the real mods guys"?

Most issues should be handled by the GM. It's kinda your job as the GM to establish law and order. Higher mods only come in when people refuse to leave after the GM tells them to fuck off, and to my knowledge, that doesn't happen very often. Section issues in Casual are more than likely just issues with the GM being lazy or not using their site-given authority to say "go away" when the time is right.

And to comment on a specific sentence;

Plus their experience in that section means they could have some sort of specialty in that area?

It depends on the type of experience; roleplaying =/= moderation skill. Rilla I'd excuse on this because in the Arena, there's more collaborative organizing going on, while in Casual it's a free for all, everyone GMs their own thing. A good roleplayer writes well, that doesn't say anything about how they handle situations requiring authority. A good GM is perhaps a better qualifier, but I'd argue still not quite on the same level.

.

Yeah, I'm not really sure if we need section specific mods. The mods themselves have stated that their primary issues with doing things on this list are just because they can't. Adding section mods might relieve them of their attachment to 'moderating the sections' but as it stands that is only a fraction of their work anyway. It'd alleviate a burden that currently has no need to be alleviated.

Rather I'd add more moderators like we currently have to relay the administrative tasks and keep people focused in the right direction. If the mods want to maintain their status as janitor staff, then that is fine, that's their choice no matter how much I disagree with it. But fact of the matter is, more hands are needed, more janitors are needed, not because there's so much rules being broken (according to the staff, since there's not many reports apparently) but because A) there is no vision for the future and if there is, it's not unified and every moderator has a vision for themselves and B) they need people to take over the slack that inevitably arises when Mahz is not present.

So, having section moderators will probably just make things more complicated than they have to be.

And that is entirely unrelated to elections, which is imho just a bad idea. I'd rather have a system where there is a form you can fill in to 'apply' for a moderator position where you include things like past experience, motivations and other relevant information which will then be evaluated by the admins and I suppose other moderators.

That way you ensure that everyone can at least have a shot to put their name in the basket. It doesn't mean that we won't end up with nepotism in terms of picking other mods, but that is something that no matter of process can prevent anyway unless we literally start drawing random names for the positions - which would be awful and don't do that.

@catchamber Dude you seem to just be lacking in common sense. Do you want me to go point by point to explain why and make you look stupid, or are you going to reflect on the questions and look for yourself?

I haven't read buy like 3 replies back, because I've been told this has gone to hell and a bnadbasket.

But I agree on section moderators and talked about this on Discord. They would be virtually useless. People will either skip over them and go straight to someone with power, or the mods will have to come in anyway.

.