Legitimate complaints about the General forum

[Wiztopia]

Why?

Because discussion of the topic has gone well and cold long before that point. As I said above, 5 days seems about right to me - if no one's posted to a thread in five days, and doesn't have anything significantly new to ads, it's dead and doesn't need to be revived a couple of weeks later, much less three months hence.

In fact, why should there be a maximum limit at all for non-current events/recurring topic threads?

Topics may not go dead, but discussions do.

To turn it around, why should we be obligated to keep any given thread going if it has fallen into disuse or outlived its appeal?

Indeed.

Your suggestion is ridiculous. 5 days is far too short.

[Bluth Corporation]

Why?

Because discussion of the topic has gone well and cold long before that point. As I said above, 5 days seems about right to me - if no one's posted to a thread in five days, and doesn't have anything significantly new to ads, it's dead and doesn't need to be revived a couple of weeks later, much less three months hence.

Not so. In some of the more academic, abstract threads, it simply takes a long time to come up with a response. For instance, in a couple of the threads I posted at the top of page 16, it has literally taken me months to research and think about and come up with a thoughtful response worthy of the points raised by others. It seems like it makes the most sense to keep those responses in the context of the comments that inspired them, by leaving the thread open and active.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

If it really takes months to research, simply link back to the original discussion for references if need be, and compile your newly-thought-out arguments/proofs/ideas into a new thread. Quite simple, provides a fresh take on things, and complies with the proposed standards for avoiding gravedigging without forcing anyone to ask 'is this an academic line of thought that should require a window of half a year or so for someone to come up with something useful or topical, or is this something that someone simply dredged up because they could'.

[Daistallia 2104]

Not so. In some of the more academic, abstract threads, it simply takes a long time to come up with a response. For instance, in a couple of the threads I posted at the top of page 16, it has literally taken me months to research and think about and come up with a thoughtful response worthy of the points raised by others. It seems like it makes the most sense to keep those responses in the context of the comments that inspired them, by leaving the thread open and active.

How often are there actual academic discussions that require months of research for commentary? I can't think of any case where that's actually happened. In fact, I can't recall having ever seen a topic that couldn't be looked up right away.

You seem to be describing a fresh take on an old topic. New thoughts deserve new threads. Reviving a discussion that everyone on the forum has moved on from (except for you it would appear) isn't contributing to it.

More likely than a thread requiring extensive research are threads like this one. Is there any reason why that thread ought to have been restarted after 20+ days rather than someone starting a new one? I can't think of any off of the top of my head.

Do also note that I said if something genuinely new on the topic - primarily news topics - came up within a month that'd be fine.

Your suggestion is ridiculous. 5 days is far too short.

Why? What on earth, aside from something genuinely new on a news topic, could you have to add to a conversation that concluded more than five days ago?

[Katganistan]

I'd like to state that personally, Generalites seem a tad bit snobbish. That is the only complaint I see. Few of the ones I've come across seem to have manners or know how to converse in a manner besides terror-seeking wording.

And flamebaiting is not exactly the thing, now is it?

[Geniasis]

More to the point, how many academic discussions actually take place in General?

[Belschaft]

More to the point, how many academic discussions actually take place in General?

Well, that depends on what you mean by 'academic', but I have been known to throw in the occasional academic reference with full citation.

Then we have TCT, who might as well be writing in the statute books with some of his posts.

Depends on the topic, and who posts in it. We get some really good debate now and again.

[[violet]]

I would be very happy if no-one was this rude to a mod again.

I was unaware "rudeness" towards the mods was against the rules. And she makes a good point beyond that. Look, I have nothing against moderation, nor Nervun in anyway. I like both NERVUN and most of the moderating team, I'm friends with them both here and off-site.

But, I would say treating the moderating team as some sort of police force, and asking people to not to be rude to them specifically as opposed to the forum as a whole, as in asking people to treat them differently than the rest of the forum at large is a step in the wrong direction, exactly the opposite image that should be attached to the NS Moderating team.

1. I did not say rudeness was against the rules. I said it made me unhappy. I also dislike the suggestion that there is no need to be polite to people except as required by rules.
2. Good points are better made without rudeness.
3. I did not ask anyone to treat mods as a police force. I ask that you treat them as human beings. If a mod posts an honest explanation of why they were unable to immediately attend to your request because of pressing real-life issues, I ask that you exhibit some understanding, rather than dismissing it as irrelevant to your demands.

If you are having trouble understanding the above, I suggest you need some perspective on where you are, what you're doing, and who exactly puts in the hours to keep this site running, for no reward.

[NERVUN]

Ok, in terms of gravedigs, sounds like we've got a wide range of opinions. I'm rather willing to go with Parth's idea except that some of that is going to be up to Moderator judgement (Timely and responce). I'd still set on a shelf life of 1 to 3 months, after which it will be locked even if it meets the criteria unless it is something really bump worthy. But again, that is also still Moderator judgement.

Is that acceptable?

Also, have flashing gif flags been mentioned yet?

Nope, sorry Dai. Since flags are a forum/site wide thing, that would probably be better off in Technical. We can't restrict a flag rule to just General.

[Dyakovo]

Ok, in terms of gravedigs, sounds like we've got a wide range of opinions. I'm rather willing to go with Parth's idea except that some of that is going to be up to Moderator judgement (Timely and responce). I'd still set on a shelf life of 1 to 3 months, after which it will be locked even if it meets the criteria unless it is something really bump worthy. But again, that is also still Moderator judgement.

Is that acceptable?

I can learn to live with anything you guys come up with for gravedig rules.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Ok, in terms of gravedigs, sounds like we've got a wide range of opinions. I'm rather willing to go with Parth's idea except that some of that is going to be up to Moderator judgement (Timely and responce). I'd still set on a shelf life of 1 to 3 months, after which it will be locked even if it meets the criteria unless it is something really bump worthy. But again, that is also still Moderator judgement.

Is that acceptable?

I can learn to live with anything you guys come up with for gravedig rules.

Gravedigging will now be punished by ten whacks with a shovel.

[Dyakovo]

I can learn to live with anything you guys come up with for gravedig rules.

Gravedigging will now be punished by ten whacks with a shovel.

Okay

[Buffett and Colbert]

I can learn to live with anything you guys come up with for gravedig rules.

Gravedigging will now be punished by ten whacks with a shovel.

I didn't know the mods were into teh kinky.



Although seriously, I think most of the things we gripe about we get used to.

[Wiztopia]

Not so. In some of the more academic, abstract threads, it simply takes a long time to come up with a response. For instance, in a couple of the threads I posted at the top of page 16, it has literally taken me months to research and think about and come up with a thoughtful response worthy of the points raised by others. It seems like it makes the most sense to keep those responses in the context of the comments that inspired them, by leaving the thread open and active.

How often are there actual academic discussions that require months of research for commentary? I can't think of any case where that's actually happened. In fact, I can't recall having ever seen a topic that couldn't be looked up right away.

You seem to be describing a fresh take on an old topic. New thoughts deserve new threads. Reviving a discussion that everyone on the forum has moved on from (except for you it would appear) isn't contributing to it.

More likely than a thread requiring extensive research are threads like this one. Is there any reason why that thread ought to have been restarted after 20+ days rather than someone starting a new one? I can't think of any off of the top of my head.

Do also note that I said if something genuinely new on the topic - primarily news topics - came up within a month that'd be fine.

Your suggestion is ridiculous. 5 days is far too short.

Why? What on earth, aside from something genuinely new on a news topic, could you have to add to a conversation that concluded more than five days ago?

Anything they can come up. I've seen great posts reviving a topic only to have it locked because they necroposted. Also your suggestion that posting 5 days after a topic died is incredibly asinine.

[Katganistan]

Please link us to a great post to a dead topic. You've said it several times; may we have an example, please?

[Vonners]

I was unaware "rudeness" towards the mods was against the rules. And she makes a good point beyond that. Look, I have nothing against moderation, nor Nervun in anyway. I like both NERVUN and most of the moderating team, I'm friends with them both here and off-site.

But, I would say treating the moderating team as some sort of police force, and asking people to not to be rude to them specifically as opposed to the forum as a whole, as in asking people to treat them differently than the rest of the forum at large is a step in the wrong direction, exactly the opposite image that should be attached to the NS Moderating team.

1. I did not say rudeness was against the rules. I said it made me unhappy. I also dislike the suggestion that there is no need to be polite to people except as required by rules.
2. Good points are better made without rudeness.
3. I did not ask anyone to treat mods as a police force. I ask that you treat them as human beings. If a mod posts an honest explanation of why they were unable to immediately attend to your request because of pressing real-life issues, I ask that you exhibit some understanding, rather than dismissing it as irrelevant to your demands.

If you are having trouble understanding the above, I suggest you need some perspective on where you are, what you're doing, and who exactly puts in the hours to keep this site running, for no reward.

True but it also cuts both ways...mods/admins have been and are rude and tend to be condescending towards players. Your post is a great example. Especially the last sentence.

Certainly hours are put in by the mods to keep the site running for no reward. What about the players? We see no reward but we post because for the most part we enjoy talking to our fellow posters. Much like why you and the mods do your work. Out of enjoyment/love.

[Anagonia]

Certainly hours are put in by the mods to keep the site running for no reward. What about the players? We see no reward but we post because for the most part we enjoy talking to our fellow posters. Much like why you and the mods do your work. Out of enjoyment/love.

I hate to say it, but I completely agree with this. I've seen many examples and recorded a few, especially recently, but this is about as much as I'll input my opinion towards this subject. Rightfully, as anyone should understand, the Moderation and Administration put in a lot of effort to keep the site running and for it to be safe and secure for people to enjoy their desires here. Alternatively, what needs to be considered is the fact that if these Moderation and Administration staff get too "hot-headed" and "egotistic" in their endeavors and no one is there to moderate them, they risk being responsible for ending the site as we know it.

[Belschaft]

Certainly hours are put in by the mods to keep the site running for no reward. What about the players? We see no reward but we post because for the most part we enjoy talking to our fellow posters. Much like why you and the mods do your work. Out of enjoyment/love.

I hate to say it, but I completely agree with this. I've seen many examples and recorded a few, especially recently, but this is about as much as I'll input my opinion towards this subject. Rightfully, as anyone should understand, the Moderation and Administration put in a lot of effort to keep the site running and for it to be safe and secure for people to enjoy their desires here. Alternatively, what needs to be considered is the fact that if these Moderation and Administration staff get too "hot-headed" and "egotistic" in their endeavors and no one is there to moderate them, they risk being responsible for ending the site as we know it.

*cough* Myrth *cough*

I don't think anyone currently with moddy powers is a problem, but oversight/accountability is always a good thing.

[Anagonia]

I hate to say it, but I completely agree with this. I've seen many examples and recorded a few, especially recently, but this is about as much as I'll input my opinion towards this subject. Rightfully, as anyone should understand, the Moderation and Administration put in a lot of effort to keep the site running and for it to be safe and secure for people to enjoy their desires here. Alternatively, what needs to be considered is the fact that if these Moderation and Administration staff get too "hot-headed" and "egotistic" in their endeavors and no one is there to moderate them, they risk being responsible for ending the site as we know it.

*cough* Myrth *cough*

I don't think anyone currently with moddy powers is a problem, but oversight/accountability is always a good thing.

Exactly, not that I personally see anyone as a problem as of yet, but the fact of oversight/accountability.

[Belschaft]

Certainly hours are put in by the mods to keep the site running for no reward. What about the players? We see no reward but we post because for the most part we enjoy talking to our fellow posters. Much like why you and the mods do your work. Out of enjoyment/love.

There are numerous examples of non-mods who put in hours of work. Nat in F7, Unibot in the WA. Any of the hardcore raiders and defenders. TCT in general.

[St George of England]

Certainly hours are put in by the mods to keep the site running for no reward. What about the players? We see no reward but we post because for the most part we enjoy talking to our fellow posters. Much like why you and the mods do your work. Out of enjoyment/love.

There are numerous examples of non-mods who put in hours of work. Nat in F7, Unibot in the WA. Any of the hardcore raiders and defenders. TCT in general.

Who?

[Belschaft]

There are numerous examples of non-mods who put in hours of work. Nat in F7, Unibot in the WA. Any of the hardcore raiders and defenders. TCT in general.

Who?

Nanatsu no Tsuki. Founder and proprietor of the Bistro. It's her nickname on the SSA when she uses the account under that name.

[St George of England]

Who?

Nanatsu no Tsuki. Founder and proprietor of the Bistro. It's her nickname on the SSA when she uses the account under that name.

Oh, true.

[Czardas]

True but it also cuts both ways...mods/admins have been and are rude and tend to be condescending towards players. Your post is a great example.

Oh, the plebeians think we're condescending. How precious. Modlets, do be dears and get them a nice fruit basket as a token of our magnanimity, won't you?

In seriousness, I really don't see an issue with "people should be nicer to one another." Nor do I think [violet] intended to say anything much more than that. While [violet] isn't a mod, [violet] does put in much more effort than most of us and I can't imagine it's all for fun either -- yes, some players do also put in extensive amounts of time, but they can also reduce their effort to virtually nothing and limit themselves to odd caustic remarks, or leave the game altogether, all without much consequence to the average user (apart from "Oh, I miss that guy, he was pretty cool" etc). If moderators didn't moderate and codemonkeys didn't monkey with code things would get broken, bugs would be buggy, spambots would spam and in general I imagine people wouldn't be happy.

Not to say that the average user isn't also important, of course; just that there's less responsibility riding on him. (The main one would be "making the game an enjoyable place" and that is always a collective effort.) Some of my best friends are normal players. You are a credit to your usergroup! Argh, once I get started I can't stop...

[Vonners]

True but it also cuts both ways...mods/admins have been and are rude and tend to be condescending towards players. Your post is a great example.

Oh, the plebeians think we're condescending. How precious.

I really don't see an issue with "people should be nicer to one another." Nor do I think [violet] intended to say anything much more than that. While [violet] isn't a mod, [violet] does put in much more effort than most of us and I can't imagine it's all for fun either -- yes, some players do also put in extensive amounts of time, but they can also reduce their effort to virtually nothing and limit themselves to odd caustic remarks, or leave the game altogether, all without much consequence to the average user (apart from "Oh, I miss that guy, he was pretty cool" etc). If moderators didn't moderate and codemonkeys didn't monkey with code things would get broken, bugs would be buggy, spambots would spam and in general I imagine people wouldn't be happy.

Not to say that the average user isn't also important, of course; just that there's less responsibility riding on him. (The main one would be "making the game an enjoyable place" and that is always a collective effort.) Some of my best friends are normal players. You are a credit to your usergroup! Argh, once I get started I can't stop...

Thank you for adding nothing to the discussion beyond yet another example of twatish behaviour.