[Discussion/Announcement] NSG's "Wing" Megathreads

[Joohan]

I meant precisely what I said. If you cannot parse it, let me put it another way.

1. The RWDT had a core base that was more toxic than other megathreads. There were some very good people in there, to be sure. But a lot of them weren't, and they outweighed the good ones.

Toxic? You'll have to expand upon that. Do you mean to say that we were bad faith posters, or that we were prone to flaming - or, more rather, that you found our political opinions toxic? If it were merely a case of wanting to discourage bad faith posting or flaming, then surely the most prudent action would be to continue warning and banning those problematic posters. Banning the entire thread doesn't encourage good behavior, it silences the discussion completely.

2. The RWDT's core base, both toxic and non-toxic, was very cliquey.

What does this mean? That we enjoyed each other's company? I wasn't aware that that broke the rules, and that our companionship somehow led to rule breaking - but do enlighten me!

3. When a RWDT regular (most often, one of the toxic ones) broke the rules (lets face it, toxic people break rules more often than non-toxic ones), the rest of them circled the wagons to defend one of their own, rather than concede that maybe the person in question was actually at fault.

The way to avoid criticism is to do nothing. People protesting a mod's actions does not not detract from the quality of NS, if anything, it helps to keep them accountable. Not that what you say is true is anyway - we've very little tolerance for actual rule breaking behavior. You probably don't remember the likes of El-Amin and that one guy who bragged about his actions as a pedophile.

The point is, if individuals are the perceived problem, then slashing an extremely popular thread seems to be most ignorant blanket action possible.

[Asherahan]

Why is chatting in threads discouraged?

[La Xinga]

Why is chatting in threads discouraged?

Huh? Where?

[The New California Republic]

A reminder that the LWDT didn't do any of those things.

But it met the description. Now put your hand behind your head or you'll be tazed.

I also dispute the assertion that the LWDT had become a generic chat thread.

And that isn't a shit post. I'm honestly surprised the mods decided to do this while there are actually protests and riots around the world about what is seen as over enthusiastic policing. Not saying the mods are killing people, but they must have realised there would be a....fucking furious response right now. People stuck at home, seeing the protests, no real outlet, let's give them one. Bad idea in my opinion. The locks could have waited a little while.

Who knows. I know shit has been getting bad in the RWDT as of late, so that might have hastened it slightly.

[Asherahan]

Why is chatting in threads discouraged?

Huh? Where?

One of the reasons LWDT and RWDT were closed is because of chatting. Why is chatting bad?

[The New California Republic]

A reminder that the LWDT didn't do any of those things.

Oh, I can believe it. And I can also believe that the mods locked the LWDT to avoid accusations of bias, even though the LWDT was adhering to the rules (I honestly can't fault them for it, either, given the incessant hooting and hollering that would've resulted from the core of the RWDT, who even now, can't accept they have a toxic rulebreaking clique).

It would have likely resulted in there being a flood of folk from the RWDT into the LWDT, where the same behaviour would have just been transferred into it.

[The Marlborough]

But it met the description. Now put your hand behind your head or you'll be tazed.

I also dispute the assertion that the LWDT had become a generic chat thread.

And that isn't a shit post. I'm honestly surprised the mods decided to do this while there are actually protests and riots around the world about what is seen as over enthusiastic policing. Not saying the mods are killing people, but they must have realised there would be a....fucking furious response right now. People stuck at home, seeing the protests, no real outlet, let's give them one. Bad idea in my opinion. The locks could have waited a little while.

Who knows. I know shit has been getting bad in the RWDT as of late, so that might have hastened it slightly.

If by getting bad you mean beginning to host essay contests and the some of the leading posters encouraging people to start cooling things down, then sure.

[La Xinga]

Huh? Where?

One of the reasons LWDT and RWDT were closed is because of chatting. Why is chatting bad?

Where does it say that?

[Salandriagado]

We're not Illuminati.

We're trans-dimensional space lizards.

Why do you think my office is within walking distance of the Giza pyramids?

See part of the transparency issue is that I didn't know you had an office within walking distance of the Giza pyramids. Shame.

I mean, I knew that, so that's a you issue, not a transparency issue.

[Aureumterra]

So by this logic, is Christian Discussion going to be locked? "Christian" is a very broad term, it can cover anything from the Roman Catholic Church, to the bajillion different types of protestantism, to Mormonism and Calvinism.

[Joohan]

So by this logic, is Christian Discussion going to be locked? "Christian" is a very broad term, it can cover anything from the Roman Catholic Church, to the bajillion different types of protestantism, to Mormonism and Calvinism.

Things are pretty chatty there too you know...

[Valrifell]

One of the reasons LWDT and RWDT were closed is because of chatting. Why is chatting bad?

Where does it say that?

Boards (specifically F7) were backed up with several dozen competing chat threads all of which were busy and difficult to police. The staff decided it would be better if it were capped at one (moderator OP'd) per board.

[La Xinga]

Where does it say that?

Boards (specifically F7) were backed up with several dozen competing chat threads all of which were busy and difficult to police. The staff decided it would be better if it were capped at one (moderator OP'd) per board.

Regular chat threads? No point just to chat? Of course! You can't have 9059043 chat threads!

[Diarcesia]

So by this logic, is Christian Discussion going to be locked? "Christian" is a very broad term, it can cover anything from the Roman Catholic Church, to the bajillion different types of protestantism, to Mormonism and Calvinism.

Things are pretty chatty there too you know...

It does have a little banter, but for the most part it stays on topic. I was in the RWDT just as XXI was started and those few pages alone felt more chatty than the entire hundreds of the CDT.

[Joohan]

Where does it say that?

Boards (specifically F7) were backed up with several dozen competing chat threads all of which were busy and difficult to police. The staff decided it would be better if it were capped at one (moderator OP'd) per board.

NS is a growing site. If the problem was that they don't have enough staff to monitor everything, then the solution isn't to reduce the workload by cutting player threads, rather, it should be to increase the staff.

[Diarcesia]

Boards (specifically F7) were backed up with several dozen competing chat threads all of which were busy and difficult to police. The staff decided it would be better if it were capped at one (moderator OP'd) per board.

NS is a growing site. If the problem was that they don't have enough staff to monitor everything, then the solution isn't to reduce the workload by cutting player threads, rather, it should be to increase the staff.

^ Mods, please do take a good look at this if you feel the workload is getting too much.

[Santheres]

Just as a note and in no way speaking to the feasibility or likelihood of introduction of anything that requires a technical update: such a process could/would be onerous and even if we (specifically, admin, not just moderators) decided such an update was absolutely the best idea and needs to be queued does not mean that you would see it in a timely fashion.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I want to manage expectations.

As long as we’re kept updated on the changes and given transparent reasons for them, there’s not a big issue. Thanks for taking Cek’s reasoning into account.

I can't promise that you will feel like you're being kept updated since anything so far given will take awhile to discuss - very well may be longer than you have patience for - and much of it may well just lose out to technical infeasibility.

[Alcala-Cordel]

NS is a growing site. If the problem was that they don't have enough staff to monitor everything, then the solution isn't to reduce the workload by cutting player threads, rather, it should be to increase the staff.

^ Mods, please do take a good look at this if you feel the workload is getting too much.

I want to be a mod, I'll be really biased and use it infrequently but it would be cool to have my name orange. Also, I'll try to find a text color that's easier to read on dark mode

[La Xinga]

^ Mods, please do take a good look at this if you feel the workload is getting too much.

I want to be a mod, I'll be really biased and use it infrequently but it would be cool to have my name orange

Orange? I SEE RED! NOT ORANGE!

[Western Pacific Territories]

NS is a growing site.

You sure?

[Vistulange]

I meant precisely what I said. If you cannot parse it, let me put it another way.

1. The RWDT had a core base that was more toxic than other megathreads. There were some very good people in there, to be sure. But a lot of them weren't, and they outweighed the good ones.

Toxic? You'll have to expand upon that. Do you mean to say that we were bad faith posters, or that we were prone to flaming - or, more rather, that you found our political opinions toxic? If it were merely a case of wanting to discourage bad faith posting or flaming, then surely the most prudent action would be to continue warning and banning those problematic posters. Banning the entire thread doesn't encourage good behavior, it silences the discussion completely.

2. The RWDT's core base, both toxic and non-toxic, was very cliquey.

What does this mean? That we enjoyed each other's company? I wasn't aware that that broke the rules, and that our companionship somehow led to rule breaking - but do enlighten me!

3. When a RWDT regular (most often, one of the toxic ones) broke the rules (lets face it, toxic people break rules more often than non-toxic ones), the rest of them circled the wagons to defend one of their own, rather than concede that maybe the person in question was actually at fault.

The way to avoid criticism is to do nothing. People protesting a mod's actions does not not detract from the quality of NS, if anything, it helps to keep them accountable. Not that what you say is true is anyway - we've very little tolerance for actual rule breaking behavior. You probably don't remember the likes of El-Amin and that one guy who bragged about his actions as a pedophile.

The point is, if individuals are the perceived problem, then slashing an extremely popular thread seems to be most ignorant blanket action possible.

The RWDT had, basically, what amounted to its own "blue wall of silence". Since moderation does not take a pro-active approach in most cases, it relies on reports to deal with stuff. I have some problems with how moderation approaches its own user-base - such as some members being unnecessarily hostile towards players - but to imply that the RWDT was a place that certainly behaved according to the site rules in good faith, is a bit disingenious.

[La Xinga]

NS is a growing site.

You sure?

Where are the Drew waves?

[Esternial]

I think his main grievance is inconsistency in mod rulings, which is a topic as old as the forum I think.

I don't really believe there's a fix that would satisfy anyone here, but maybe there could be ideas out there none of us has thought of before. It's unfortunate these kind of discussions are inflated with complaints of people that feel personally wronged.

Wouldn't you like a fancy RoboMod AI though? ;)

There are multiple ideas that would at least address the problem, they're just not getting floated in favor of people bitching.
For example, making the rules far more clear and detailed- part of the problem is pretty clearly that different mods are ruling differently on borderline cases.

Again, as I stated before, you can make a thread and suggest enhancements to the OSRS if you find some parts too vague. If you argue your case well, changes can be made.

I have done so myself in the past.

[Valrifell]

Boards (specifically F7) were backed up with several dozen competing chat threads all of which were busy and difficult to police. The staff decided it would be better if it were capped at one (moderator OP'd) per board.

NS is a growing site. If the problem was that they don't have enough staff to monitor everything, then the solution isn't to reduce the workload by cutting player threads, rather, it should be to increase the staff.

The problem is a large volume of chat threads do not contribute anything for anyone and often lead to... well, you know. Be it here or back in 2016 when they halted chat threads in F7.

[Western Pacific Territories]

You sure?

(Image)

Where are the Drew waves?

Drew never showed off the forums in his video (likely because they're hard to access for someone new to the site) and I don't think his video was a real endorsement for the site. Most of his fans who weren't familiar with NS and watched the video... probably didn't care enough to visit the site.