Legitimate complaints about the General forum

[Geniasis]

This is where I'm getting caught up in Muravyets's posts. She's right, of course in that we should be talking along those lines. The problem is we already are, so the confrontational aspect just knocks me off-balance.

[Muravyets]

Instead of the moderation team deciding what we NSGers want, why not pick up on the suggestion that several others have made herein that we let the community decide what it wants to be?

That's... more or less what we're doing, isn't it?

Almost every suggestion in this thread has involved the relaxing of moderation to some degree (not moving X threads to Forum 7, being more lenient on picspam et cetera). What's being discussed "behind closed doors" is basically which rules should be relaxed in order to allow the community the greatest possible opportunity to decide what it wants to be without disrupting the operation of the site for everyone else. For instance, this thread alone has produced suggestions like "flaming should be permitted" and "divide NSG into two or three subforums", which would be relaxations of the rules that would most likely hurt the community instead of helping it.

We're not discussing the changes in this thread for one rather simple reason: when posting with moderation accounts in threads relating to site policy, moderators are essentially representatives of NS itself. Any post by a moderator in such a thread can be taken as a ruling. In this case there's as yet nothing we can rule on: it's mostly just "I think we should do this, but not this" "Agreed" "On this one forum I used to moderate, blah blah blah" "That's a terrible idea and you should feel bad for endorsing it" etc. Once a consensus is reached we'll post our proposal here and you can pick it apart if you like. If it meets with widespread disapproval, we return to the drafting board.

I don't see how much more transparent the process can be made unless you want us to start keeping minutes or something.

If you read the whole of my posts, you'll see that I am not the one arguing in favor of moderation deliberations in public.

Rather, I am arguing against moderation deliberation on forum culture matters beyond what already exists in the rules. I was responding specifically to the tongue-in-cheek remark to the effect of "tell us what you guys want, or we'll figure it out for you." I was saying that we don't need moderation to figure out what we want for us, when it comes to the culture in General. In fact, I think having anyone other than the players try to direct or arrange that aspect would be counter-productive.

NS already has a perfectly workable set of definitions of how the different forum sections work. There is no need for moderation to police or try to set up or otherwise contribute to a culture for any given section except by enforcing the rules of moderation. In terms of how much socializing versus "serious" debate is in General, let the interests of the players determine that by what threads they post in, just the same as we currently determine the popularity of any thread.

In addition, my post addressed two more points which had been raised, offering additional perspective on them, which apparently were not deemed worth acknowledging (or perhaps reading at all) by NERVUN (and others, perhaps? I'm not sure).

[Muravyets]

This is where I'm getting caught up in Muravyets's posts. She's right, of course in that we should be talking along those lines. The problem is we already are, so the confrontational aspect just knocks me off-balance.

Maybe what you're caught up on is seeing past how someone talks to what they are saying. That is one of my big peeves with many people in NS. To me, getting hung up on things like "oh, it's so confrontational" is right up there with complaining on an international forum that people don't have good English grammar. Seriously, who cares? What is the message the person is trying to deliver -- that's what matters, isn't it? So I talk in a blunt and harsh manner -- so what? There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of people I interact with annually, in person and in writing, who don't seem to have a problem dealing with the way I talk, whether they like it or not. Lots of NSers express themselves in a way that tweaks my nerves, but their style is not the point of our conversation, so I do my best to let it go, to try to see past the speaker to the meat of what they are saying. Maybe that's another thing some of us could try to be a little kinder and more thick-skinned about -- accepting that people express themselves differently, and we may not always enjoy it, but it's not really all that important. Just a thought.

[NERVUN]

In addition, my post addressed two more points which had been raised, offering additional perspective on them, which apparently were not deemed worth acknowledging (or perhaps reading at all) by NERVUN (and others, perhaps? I'm not sure).

I have been holding off on responding because everytime I have read your posts, I have gotten hot under the collar. Too hot to maintain the tone that is expected of a Moderator, but you know what... If I may quote a sailor, I've taken all that I can stands, and I can't stands no more.

I'm not sure that you remember where I am, nor am I sure that you know the time difference between Japan and your location, but my original post was made at 8:15am on Tuesday. I posted quickly trying to note that we are taking player's points of view very seriously and that the closed door stuff is the Moderator guidelines that we need to do our jobs.

Then I went running down the hall because today is when I tested each and every one of my first year students, all 160+ of them, one by one. So instead of being rude, I was being busy and trying to respond to what I thought was a quick point I could make before I went off to do what I am supposed to be doing, teaching.

So, no, Mura, I still do not get where I supposedly was blowing off everyone in General, especially as I have been asking for input from anyone who wanders into this thread to find out just what is the concensus that people want.

[Czardas]

That's... more or less what we're doing, isn't it?

Almost every suggestion in this thread has involved the relaxing of moderation to some degree (not moving X threads to Forum 7, being more lenient on picspam et cetera). What's being discussed "behind closed doors" is basically which rules should be relaxed in order to allow the community the greatest possible opportunity to decide what it wants to be without disrupting the operation of the site for everyone else. For instance, this thread alone has produced suggestions like "flaming should be permitted" and "divide NSG into two or three subforums", which would be relaxations of the rules that would most likely hurt the community instead of helping it.

We're not discussing the changes in this thread for one rather simple reason: when posting with moderation accounts in threads relating to site policy, moderators are essentially representatives of NS itself. Any post by a moderator in such a thread can be taken as a ruling. In this case there's as yet nothing we can rule on: it's mostly just "I think we should do this, but not this" "Agreed" "On this one forum I used to moderate, blah blah blah" "That's a terrible idea and you should feel bad for endorsing it" etc. Once a consensus is reached we'll post our proposal here and you can pick it apart if you like. If it meets with widespread disapproval, we return to the drafting board.

I don't see how much more transparent the process can be made unless you want us to start keeping minutes or something.

If you read the whole of my posts, you'll see that I am not the one arguing in favor of moderation deliberations in public.

You're right. I believe that was Vonners. That post can be addressed at him instead. <.<

Rather, I am arguing against moderation deliberation on forum culture matters beyond what already exists in the rules. I was responding specifically to the tongue-in-cheek remark to the effect of "tell us what you guys want, or we'll figure it out for you." I was saying that we don't need moderation to figure out what we want for us, when it comes to the culture in General. In fact, I think having anyone other than the players try to direct or arrange that aspect would be counter-productive.

NS already has a perfectly workable set of definitions of how the different forum sections work. There is no need for moderation to police or try to set up or otherwise contribute to a culture for any given section except by enforcing the rules of moderation.

The rules of moderation are what is being discussed at present -- more specifically, how to change them.

As you seem to have recognised NERVUN's remark as tongue-in-cheek, I hesitate to speculate on why you chose to respond to it in such a confrontational manner nonetheless. It's not physically possible for us to set up a culture for any one forum after all (not without a much higher mod-to-player ratio, anyway <.<)

In terms of how much socializing versus "serious" debate is in General, let the interests of the players determine that by what threads they post in, just the same as we currently determine the popularity of any thread.

... which is a point that's also been emphasized in the discussions in M/A.

In addition, my post addressed two more points which had been raised, offering additional perspective on them, which apparently were not deemed worth acknowledging (or perhaps reading at all) by NERVUN (and others, perhaps? I'm not sure).

Your other points weren't acknowledged because they are quite similar to other points that were acknowledged earlier, most likely. "It's not realistic to expect players to be equally comfortable in all forums" = yeah, I think Ballotonia brought that up first. Its follow-up in the last paragraph is more or less what, in particular, Sarkhaan has been driving at all along. In terms of analysis you go somewhat deeper, I think -- as is to be expected from anyone aware of your contributions to NS -- but I don't think there's anything in your post fundamentally different from everything else that's been said, which I imagine NERVUN also recognised. It's also possible he lacked the time to address your post in depth.

[Muravyets]

In addition, my post addressed two more points which had been raised, offering additional perspective on them, which apparently were not deemed worth acknowledging (or perhaps reading at all) by NERVUN (and others, perhaps? I'm not sure).

I have been holding off on responding because everytime I have read your posts, I have gotten hot under the collar. Too hot to maintain the tone that is expected of a Moderator, but you know what... If I may quote a sailor, I've taken all that I can stands, and I can't stands no more.

I'm not sure that you remember where I am, nor am I sure that you know the time difference between Japan and your location, but my original post was made at 8:15am on Tuesday. I posted quickly trying to note that we are taking player's points of view very seriously and that the closed door stuff is the Moderator guidelines that we need to do our jobs.

Then I went running down the hall because today is when I tested each and every one of my first year students, all 160+ of them, one by one. So instead of being rude, I was being busy and trying to respond to what I thought was a quick point I could make before I went off to do what I am supposed to be doing, teaching.

So, no, Mura, I still do not get where I supposedly was blowing off everyone in General, especially as I have been asking for input from anyone who wanders into this thread to find out just what is the concensus that people want.

But it did not occur to you that you should have not posted at all until you had time?

You must know that the details of your working day are not visible to the posters in NS, so I'm not exactly clear on why you're citing them as an explanation of your actions in NS now, as if (A) I should have known how busy you are, or (B) the fact that you chose to post when you had no time for it somehow excuses the fact that you took a moment to post a bit of snark that was completely off base to the post you were snarkin' on.

Look, NERVUN, I'm sorry, but there's my original post, and there's your original response to it, and never the twain shall meet in reality-land. And yes, that level of missing the point on the part of a long-term moderator does bode ill, in my opinion, for any involvement of moderation in any question of improving the culture of NSG. And that's regardless of whether you did it on purpose or not.

Or if you prefer, we could conclude that you were in fact not telling the whole of General to go blow. Just one poster. Whichever you like better, is fine with me.

[Muravyets]

If you read the whole of my posts, you'll see that I am not the one arguing in favor of moderation deliberations in public.

You're right. I believe that was Vonners. That post can be addressed at him instead. <.<

Thank you.

Rather, I am arguing against moderation deliberation on forum culture matters beyond what already exists in the rules. I was responding specifically to the tongue-in-cheek remark to the effect of "tell us what you guys want, or we'll figure it out for you." I was saying that we don't need moderation to figure out what we want for us, when it comes to the culture in General. In fact, I think having anyone other than the players try to direct or arrange that aspect would be counter-productive.

NS already has a perfectly workable set of definitions of how the different forum sections work. There is no need for moderation to police or try to set up or otherwise contribute to a culture for any given section except by enforcing the rules of moderation.

The rules of moderation are what is being discussed at present -- more specifically, how to change them.

What's to change (rhetorical question)? If General is discussion and F7 is chat/games, then just stop moving discussion threads that not politics out of General. Leave them where they are to sink or swim just like any other moderated discussion thread. All other rules surely can stay the same, yes? This is a matter of making less work, not more.

As you seem to have recognised NERVUN's remark as tongue-in-cheek, I hesitate to speculate on why you chose to respond to it in such a confrontational manner nonetheless. It's not physically possible for us to set up a culture for any one forum after all (not without a much higher mod-to-player ratio, anyway <.<)

Sorry, not correct. I did not respond to the tongue-in-cheek remark in a confrontational manner. I responded to NERVUN's rather condescending and obviously wrong statement that I was off-topic in a manner that reflected the offense I took at his ignoring the content of my post, which actually was on-topic.

In terms of how much socializing versus "serious" debate is in General, let the interests of the players determine that by what threads they post in, just the same as we currently determine the popularity of any thread.

... which is a point that's also been emphasized in the discussions in M/A.

Which is of little interest until you have a conclusion, as access to your chats is Vonners' issue, not mine. It is also not actually germane to my complaint, which is NOT -- I repeat, NOT -- the subject of my original post.

In addition, my post addressed two more points which had been raised, offering additional perspective on them, which apparently were not deemed worth acknowledging (or perhaps reading at all) by NERVUN (and others, perhaps? I'm not sure).

Your other points weren't acknowledged because they are quite similar to other points that were acknowledged earlier, most likely. "It's not realistic to expect players to be equally comfortable in all forums" = yeah, I think Ballotonia brought that up first. Its follow-up in the last paragraph is more or less what, in particular, Sarkhaan has been driving at all along. In terms of analysis you go somewhat deeper, I think -- as is to be expected from anyone aware of your contributions to NS -- but I don't think there's anything in your post fundamentally different from everything else that's been said, which I imagine NERVUN also recognised. It's also possible he lacked the time to address your post in depth.

Hehehehe, yeah, not buying it. The content of NERVUN's post was clear, and by excising the rest of my post without acknowledgement, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that he was telling me off for being entirely off-topic. You can say my statements were redundant, even boring, if you want, but you can't say they were off-topic, which is what NERVUN did -- and rudely so.

Now he has acknowledged that he posted that at a time when, frankly, he probably should not have been posting in NS but, tbh, that does not make it better. And further frankly, the fact that now two additional mods have seen fit to pursue an argument that is actually now entirely off topic and to inflate one player making a complaint about the handling of an example of player input into some kind of a major debate, instead of just letting the post stand and either be taken into consideration or dropped as unimportant, is also not making the view look any brighter.

Now I don't know how you guys feel about this, but I'm not really interested in continuing to enable this threadjack. I made my argument. Nothing so far that has been said counter to it has made me question my interpretation of events. So, I stand by my statements. I'm prepared to leave it at that and let others make of it what they like, if anything.

[Geniasis]

Maybe what you're caught up on is seeing past how someone talks to what they are saying.

You seem to have misunderstood my post, so it appears that I am not caught up on that.

That is one of my big peeves with many people in NS. To me, getting hung up on things like "oh, it's so confrontational" is right up there with complaining on an international forum that people don't have good English grammar. Seriously, who cares? What is the message the person is trying to deliver -- that's what matters, isn't it? So I talk in a blunt and harsh manner -- so what? There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of people I interact with annually, in person and in writing, who don't seem to have a problem dealing with the way I talk, whether they like it or not. Lots of NSers express themselves in a way that tweaks my nerves, but their style is not the point of our conversation, so I do my best to let it go, to try to see past the speaker to the meat of what they are saying. Maybe that's another thing some of us could try to be a little kinder and more thick-skinned about -- accepting that people express themselves differently, and we may not always enjoy it, but it's not really all that important. Just a thought.

Ironically, you're missing the actual content of my message. I wasn't discussing the method in which you delivered your post. By "confrontational" I was referring to the fact that you framed your post in such a way as to make it seem that we were acting in a way opposed to the suggestions you brought forward. We were not doing anything of the kind, so your criticism was thusly lost on me.

[Maurepas]

Was randomly instructed to look at this thread again after having ignored it for sometime, heh, and I happened to have a thought:

In addition to the introducing thread another thing the other forums I visit have is a Status thread, which I think could be fun for discussing the happenings of people's days, and general chit-chat(pun intended, ). Just a thought, ^_^

[Muravyets]

The real irony, Geniasis, is that you think I think you said the exact opposite of what you said, when in fact, what you think I said is the exact opposite of what I said. This kind of Gordion knot of confusion is why I always end with just telling people to go back and read the thread. And in fact, I do have a history of cases in which I've wrangled with someone for hours, even days, until I finally just refuse to keep at it and just tell them, "This is my stance, end of. Read the thread." And like a week or so later, they come back to me and say, "Heh, yeah, you're right, that wasn't what I thought it was."

That's where I'm at in this kerfluffle now. I stand by my statements -- ALL of them. Read the thread until my point becomes clear. Or don't, whatever you wish. But continuing to argue will get us nowhere because, see above. It's called we're talking at cross-purposes to each other.

[Geniasis]

The real irony, Geniasis, is that you think I think you said the exact opposite of what you said, when in fact, what you think I said is the exact opposite of what I said. This kind of Gordion knot of confusion is why I always end with just telling people to go back and read the thread. And in fact, I do have a history of cases in which I've wrangled with someone for hours, even days, until I finally just refuse to keep at it and just tell them, "This is my stance, end of. Read the thread." And like a week or so later, they come back to me and say, "Heh, yeah, you're right, that wasn't what I thought it was."

True. Perhaps this is indeed the case. I respectfully submit that perhaps the opposite is also true.

That's where I'm at in this kerfluffle now. I stand by my statements -- ALL of them. Read the thread until my point becomes clear. Or don't, whatever you wish. But continuing to argue will get us nowhere because, see above. It's called we're talking at cross-purposes to each other.

I'm aware of the existence and meaning of the phrase, thanks.

[Muravyets]

The real irony, Geniasis, is that you think I think you said the exact opposite of what you said, when in fact, what you think I said is the exact opposite of what I said. This kind of Gordion knot of confusion is why I always end with just telling people to go back and read the thread. And in fact, I do have a history of cases in which I've wrangled with someone for hours, even days, until I finally just refuse to keep at it and just tell them, "This is my stance, end of. Read the thread." And like a week or so later, they come back to me and say, "Heh, yeah, you're right, that wasn't what I thought it was."

True. Perhaps this is indeed the case. I respectfully submit that perhaps the opposite is also true.

That's where I'm at in this kerfluffle now. I stand by my statements -- ALL of them. Read the thread until my point becomes clear. Or don't, whatever you wish. But continuing to argue will get us nowhere because, see above. It's called we're talking at cross-purposes to each other.

I'm aware of the existence and meaning of the phrase, thanks.

Your submitted argument is noted. I stand by my statements, which I have considered extensively, every time they were challenged. I, for one, am done here.

[Disco Tetris]

i don't think there's anything wrong with the general forum anything moderation can do to fix. it's simply a reflection of the dominant culture and all of the things that are wrong with that.

Basically this.

[Wiztopia]

i don't think there's anything wrong with the general forum anything moderation can do to fix. it's simply a reflection of the dominant culture and all of the things that are wrong with that.

Like what?

[Barringtonia]

i don't think there's anything wrong with the general forum anything moderation can do to fix. it's simply a reflection of the dominant culture and all of the things that are wrong with that.

Like what?

Like getting worked up over issues that, in the big scheme of things, are unimportant and not worth getting worked up over, often to do with personal ego.

I imagine..

[Disco Tetris]

i don't think there's anything wrong with the general forum anything moderation can do to fix. it's simply a reflection of the dominant culture and all of the things that are wrong with that.

Like what?

I dunno exactly what he meant, but to me people seem really angry lately. It's as if people decided to model their posting style off of Fass or something.

[Melkor Unchained]

i don't think there's anything wrong with the general forum anything moderation can do to fix. it's simply a reflection of the dominant culture and all of the things that are wrong with that.

Basically this.

*is now suspicious that Cameroi is spying on us since I said something similar in the Mod/Admin forum*

[Audentias Gryphus]

Basically this.

*is now suspicious that Cameroi is spying on us since I said something similar in the Mod/Admin forum*

*tsk tsk tsk* You and your delirium.

That does sound like a moderator's sort of handiwork on the subject. Call me prejudiced but I don't believe someone who doesn't bother to capitalize when they write could think of something so simple and down to earth.

[Czardas]

Basically this.

*is now suspicious that Cameroi is spying on us since I said something similar in the Mod/Admin forum*

I'm slightly more worried that someone of odd and unpopular yet anti-establishment political views who is well known for his apparent use of mind-altering substances and Cameroi seem to be in agreement. o.0

...

:P

As for where we are in discussions, currently the last of the bluecoats has weighed in and we're entering the consensus-gathering (read: "negotiation") stage.

[Barringtonia]

*is now suspicious that Cameroi is spying on us since I said something similar in the Mod/Admin forum*

I'm slightly more worried that someone of odd and unpopular yet anti-establishment political views who is well known for his apparent use of mind-altering substances and Cameroi seem to be in agreement. o.0

I see what you did there..

That does sound like a moderator's sort of handiwork on the subject. Call me prejudiced but I don't believe someone who doesn't bother to capitalize when they write could think of something so simple and down to earth.

The content and format are entirely consistent with Cameroi's style over the ages.

As for where we are in discussions, currently the last of the bluecoats has weighed in and we're entering the consensus-gathering (read: "negotiation") stage.

I still don't really get what the issue or resolution can be, allow General to be more social? It's been done over a million times. I do remember the old guard used to respond to a lot of these 'wah NSG' complaints with 'yeah well, NSG is always going downhill, been complained about since December '02 donchano'

Ultimately while I think we all appreciate response, I just don't think you're ever going to omit complaints. From my point of view, though the lingering F7 split still doesn't make me happy, at some point there's a balance between addressing complaints and ignoring habitual complaining for habitual reasons. Generally, something happens in Moderation, big fuss occurs, something must be wrong with General and let's fix it.

It's just the same old same old in my opinion.

Still, it's nice to chat about it all I suppose.

[NERVUN]

As for where we are in discussions, currently the last of the bluecoats has weighed in and we're entering the consensus-gathering (read: "negotiation") stage.

I still don't really get what the issue or resolution can be, allow General to be more social? It's been done over a million times. I do remember the old guard used to respond to a lot of these 'wah NSG' complaints with 'yeah well, NSG is always going downhill, been complained about since December '02 donchano'

Ultimately while I think we all appreciate response, I just don't think you're ever going to omit complaints. From my point of view, though the lingering F7 split still doesn't make me happy, at some point there's a balance between addressing complaints and ignoring habitual complaining for habitual reasons. Generally, something happens in Moderation, big fuss occurs, something must be wrong with General and let's fix it.

It's just the same old same old in my opinion.

Still, it's nice to chat about it all I suppose.

The day General stops complaining is the day Max pulls the plug.

Yeah, the complaints happen every so often and I agree that obviously we're never going to make everyone happy and there will always be people talking about the death of NSG or what have you, but... It's still good, in my point of view, to take stock every so often and ask if we can make things better by doing something different.

[Glitziness]

I haven't read all the thread, but just my brief thoughts, as an oldie who hadn't seen the new forum until yesterday....

I did find it odd to see the stark division between general and F7, with no real middle ground with my favourite kind of threads, structured conversation and socialising, or casual opinions on things... the kinda thing Sarkhaan mentions in quotes on the first page. That was also the kind of thing which started getting moved to spam a lot, and was one of the reasons why I left (and quite a few others). I definitely think it helped a sense of community, having a range of conversations and topics in General - I was friends with all kinds of people, with sometimes totally opposite views, we had laughs together, discussed stuff together, helped each other through stuff, were interested in each others lives AND opinions... it was nice.

I have nothing incredibly practical to say, except that I liked it the way it used to be, and I didn't see major problems with it... people who were more political avoided the social threads a bit, people who didnt like politics avoided the politics threads, but most people got involved in a mix.... there was the occasional really spammy one that got moved, or a social one that went on ages and got moved, but mostly it was fine.

I can understand why too little variety is bad, but I just can't see why too much is...

[NERVUN]

After listening to the posts here in this thread and discussion amongst the Mods, we'd like to propose the following changes for General to you all to see if this comes close to what you think would help get more social life and a tighter community to NSG.

1. Social threads will be back in General as long as they lead to some kind of discussion OR are aimed at General. What this means is that silly news, what's your favorite X, and the like will be acceptable as well as threads like Sexiest NSG'er. Threads that are chat threads (Such as the Bistro), game threads, rate the X above, and RPs will still call F7 home. We're going to try to use the OP's original placement as a guide, but we still might move threads that obviously seem out of place.

2. Pictures will be back in General as long as they are somewhat relevant to the discussion (In other words not just pics for pics sake) and spoiler'ed (Especially when quoting (And please note Ard is threatening much violence in this case)). Memes are still forbidden.

In other words, randomly posting

will make us all

3. We will relax the rules on gravedigs to allow a shelf life of 3 months as long as the post does add to the discussion and the topic itself is not one of NSG's Greatest Hits. For example, posts such as "Me too" or "I disagree" without much elaboration would still be considered a gravedig. Posts that address a previous post and expand would not (I.e. I agree, but I think that we need to look at X, Y, and Z because...). Posts that do expand but are in a topic that comes up constantly in General (Such as abortion) will be still considered a gravedig as chances are we've got another thread on the topic already going and we really don't need 4 or 5 threads on the same topic.

Again, this is based off of what we heard from posters in this thread that they think would help General. F7 obviously isn't going anywhere and while we want to let General talk about most anything, it wouldn't be right to duplicate F7 or attempt to kill off that community as well. Hopefully this provides a balance point to keep General from JUST being serious business.

That said, as I, and the other Mods have stated, a lot of what we heard in this thread is not subject to Moderation or anything we can affect. Hopefully having more social opportunities will help, but Kat said it best that if we all want General to have a tighter community and a more welcoming one; the posters (And that includes us Mods who call General home) in General have to look to themselves and be kinder to each other.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Thank you for giving these changes a chance.

[Wiztopia]

After listening to the posts here in this thread and discussion amongst the Mods, we'd like to propose the following changes for General to you all to see if this comes close to what you think would help get more social life and a tighter community to NSG.

1. Social threads will be back in General as long as they lead to some kind of discussion OR are aimed at General. What this means is that silly news, what's your favorite X, and the like will be acceptable as well as threads like Sexiest NSG'er. Threads that are chat threads (Such as the Bistro), game threads, rate the X above, and RPs will still call F7 home. We're going to try to use the OP's original placement as a guide, but we still might move threads that obviously seem out of place.

2. Pictures will be back in General as long as they are somewhat relevant to the discussion (In other words not just pics for pics sake) and spoiler'ed (Especially when quoting (And please note Ard is threatening much violence in this case)). Memes are still forbidden.

In other words, randomly posting

will make us all

3. We will relax the rules on gravedigs to allow a shelf life of 3 months as long as the post does add to the discussion and the topic itself is not one of NSG's Greatest Hits. For example, posts such as "Me too" or "I disagree" without much elaboration would still be considered a gravedig. Posts that address a previous post and expand would not (I.e. I agree, but I think that we need to look at X, Y, and Z because...). Posts that do expand but are in a topic that comes up constantly in General (Such as abortion) will be still considered a gravedig as chances are we've got another thread on the topic already going and we really don't need 4 or 5 threads on the same topic.

Again, this is based off of what we heard from posters in this thread that they think would help General. F7 obviously isn't going anywhere and while we want to let General talk about most anything, it wouldn't be right to duplicate F7 or attempt to kill off that community as well. Hopefully this provides a balance point to keep General from JUST being serious business.

That said, as I, and the other Mods have stated, a lot of what we heard in this thread is not subject to Moderation or anything we can affect. Hopefully having more social opportunities will help, but Kat said it best that if we all want General to have a tighter community and a more welcoming one; the posters (And that includes us Mods who call General home) in General have to look to themselves and be kinder to each other.

What if somebody says "me too" but somebody else responds with an on topic post and starts a discussion?