Forum Reshuffle

[archimage_a]

By your logic, Tech and computers, Forum Games, Gallery etc should ALSO be sub-boards to Off topic, I disagree

By my logic I should not make decisions on the Off Topic Board.

By my logic, if I were going to make decisions on the Off Topic Board, I would ask people what they wanted and accept that, regardless of my personal opinions on what should happen.

 

 

Wouldn't that be the GM's job to enforce rules?

Yup, however they have no power to enforce it, since the moderator is not allowed to ask, tell or demand that a user does not post on a thread without the Sword of Damocles hanging above their head on the threat of being percieved to have bullied the user...

 

 

Every time i've role played in real time, that quandary you have in text that you mentioned has never happened.

 

In real life, if someone is being counter productive you can play the game elsewhere, or suspend the game for the five or ten minutes it takes for them to get bored and wander off, letting you play for the next two, five, ten hours without interruption.

 

Online, if someone is being counter productive you can't play the game elsewhere, and suspending an online game wouldn't work, since it is not a 'We play from X to Y and otherwise the game only exists in our heads', it is 'The game exists on a thread, play whenever you have time.'

 

It's a forum with it's own unique culture, but it's still a community, and communities all have basic principals.

Then why does the forum resist every time the admin does anything?

Why is it that each time the admin have got involved a lot of tempers have frayed?

 

The basic principle, I would say, is that we don't want to change something that already works.

 

It seems the majority of the Tavern is split down the middle on the merging, i'd like to try at least converse and discuss with those who want them separate, not because I have to, but because I want to understand their side and try to explain mine.

 

I have no objections to you trying to converse, but people are not split down the middle, people have continually rejected the notion of merging or deleting the three forums...

 

 

So it is difficult to accept the admin are working for us, when they reject most of what we say and do stuff we don't want them to do.

[Earth]

arch, then why not vote to keep them as they are atm. that wuld help a lot more than complaining.

[The Dark Lord]

jeesus christ. i thought i was the only stubborn till death person in the tavern.. but arechi's proved me wrong. WHATS so bad about having a few threads put in the BACK of the tavern, where we will actually have to work (sligtly) to get to them, and are usually not

 

Because it would be a cluster[bleep].

 

Having the Library as a subforum only consumes 3-5 PIXELS on the index page. Jesus [bleep]ing Christ...

[Iconic]

We don't want it, filing things is a lot better.

We don't mind having a seperate unused forum that we might one day join, we like it.

 

Just leave it be.

[Jehosaphat]

I.... honestly don't care.

[Earth]

alrighty then sere. ill put my vote to leaving things be.

[das]

By my logic, if I were going to make decisions on the Off Topic Board,

 

You keep bringing off topic into this...I don't see why, as Ieyfura pointed out. Off topic is a forum under the category of General Discussion Boards. Role-playing is it's own Entity, thus it gets it's own spot on the index.

 

if I were going to make decisions on the Off Topic Board, I would ask people what they wanted and accept that, regardless of my personal opinions on what should happen.

 

I'd be fine with that if the suggestion for a merger was not suggested by a "Tavernite" who felt it should be merged. The argument was logical and made sense.

Thus we decided it would be a wise choice to possibly merge.

 

 

Yup, however they have no power to enforce it, since the moderator is not allowed to ask, tell or demand that a user does not post on a thread without the Sword of Damocles hanging above their head on the threat of being percieved to have bullied the user...

 

As far as I am concerned the Moderator of this section has the abilty to enforce the rules as needed to promote a happy role-playing experience at all. Being a moderator, is much like being a leader, sometimes you have to make choices that are nto liked, people may get mad, but a good moderator has a backbone and can make unpopular but correct choices. The Administration will always support any moderator when they make a correct decision.

 

 

I've spoken with Dooms, she is willing to make GMing more accountable and let the GM's of threads have more control, but that's something doom will have to chime with, I do not speak for her, but I do support the vision she has for the section.

 

Then why does the forum resist every time the admin does anything?

What have they resisted on asides a merger? No rape in stories?

The basic principle, I would say, is that we don't want to change something that already works.

works as in a dead, request only forum that no one has ever shown an interest or care for until a merger was mentioned?

 

but people are not split down the middle, people have continually rejected the notion of merging or deleting the three forums...

 

Really?

 

I.... honestly don't care.

 

does it matter? why not put them in the back of the tavern.

New life is more likely if it's a separate forum, and if it's deleted my suggestion for a sticky explaining the concept would allow those potentially interested to start it back up.

I don't see why they're against a merge either...

\Yeah I have no idea why people don't like the idea Das.

 

 

those comments seem to disagree with you sir.

 

~Das

[Retech]

Just a random thing while I was reading this (I don't really mind a merger or the lack of one), but are the quotes from different people? Just a thought. :thumbup:

 

Kemios

Earth

Nexaduro

Ieyfura

Dusty

 

Nevermind, all accounted for. :thumbup:

[Wisp]

My idea for GM's is this: If they have an issue with a player, and wish for them to 'ban' them from the thread, and have a good reason, they send a PM to me, detailing the reason. If it's a good reason, such as the user is breaking the game's rules, is flaming, or going against the spirit of the game, and have been warned in the past, I ok it, and will enforce that ban. You however, cannot preemptively ban someone from a thread that you don't like, and you can't just ban someone because you don't like them.

Fair?

 

My opinion on the merger is this. As a test, when I first suggested this, I merged about a page of threads from the Library here, and no one commented on noticing it, much less complained, until after I said that I had put the thread there. I doubt anyone routinely checks the back pages of the forum. All the threads from Rusco, and the Library, would not be noticeable unless you ventured off the first page. If people are really worried about threads being revived, I could lock all the merged threads, though I doubt it's really necessary. If someone wants to try to revive a thread, by starting a new thread, go for it. It won't "ruin the memory" of the original thread.

There really isn't a good reason to delete or remove the library from public view. And yes, Archi, you could say you are the last poster there, but far from the only ever.

[Earth]

i noticed them, but i was too engrossed in reading them to actually say anything.

[archimage_a]

You keep bringing off topic into this...I don't see why, as Ieyfura pointed out. Off topic is a forum under the category of General Discussion Boards. Role-playing is it's own Entity, thus it gets it's own spot on the index.

I brought it up as a metaphor.

Always the problem with metaphors, people take them literally and get confused.

 

I'd be fine with that if the suggestion for a merger was not suggested by a "Tavernite" who felt it should be merged. The argument was logical and made sense.

Thus we decided it would be a wise choice to possibly merge.

So one person felt it should be merged, and you agree, and thus is right regardless of at least one other person disagreeing?

That sounds somewhat biased to me.

 

As far as I am concerned the Moderator of this section has the abilty to enforce the rules as needed to promote a happy role-playing experience at all. Being a moderator, is much like being a leader, sometimes you have to make choices that are nto liked, people may get mad, but a good moderator has a backbone and can make unpopular but correct choices. The Administration will always support any moderator when they make a correct decision.

 

So...you listen to the users until you disagree with them, at which point you become empowered to make the right choice for them?

Doesn't that strike you as somewhat dictatorial?

[hide] [/hide]

 

 

On the matter of taking unpopular moves...If they are unpopular, and the only people they effect are the people who think they are unpopular...Then they are not only unpopular but unwise.

If something is unwise then it doesn't matter how correct you, personally, think it is.

 

Example:

As a moderator, you need to show a sense of unity with the rest of the team. Do not imply to users that you are being forced to warn against your will, as it will cause them to take the warning much less seriously.

 

However it is unwise to do this since, to their mind, the rule is stupid, thus the person enforcing the rule is stupid, thus there is no reason to abide by the rule.

By explaining that you are aware of the failings of the rules, but accept that in 99% of cases, they are the correct course of action, it fosters the sense that, although the rule is stupid (Users original position) it has to be enforced equally, and thus it is better to avoid a repeat offense.

 

And having the Admin tell the user that they have broken the rules for disagreeing with the rules is...to me...an abuse of power and only engenders further recriminations.

 

 

I've spoken with Dooms, she is willing to make GMing more accountable and let the GM's of threads have more control, but that's something doom will have to chime with, I do not speak for her, but I do support the vision she has for the section.

Cool. We shall see how she does.

 

What have they resisted on asides a merger? No rape in stories?

http://forum.tip.it/topic/267130-the-newest-global-announcement/page__view__findpost__p__4335815

http://forum.tip.it/topic/272351-delta-v/page__view__findpost__p__4465467

 

 

So the removal of the forum's post count adding ability and chastising us for Hex's removal.

There are other posts related to both of those, however they are on the same topic.

 

As for the rape comment...

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

 

Its mostly irrelevant though, most of the rest of the forum agrees with you on that matter...

Swiftboating is very unbecoming though.

 

works as in a dead, request only forum that no one has ever shown an interest or care for until a merger was mentioned?

Earth says he reads it occassionally.

I certainly read parts of it when I need to unwind.

 

Merely because people do not post there, does not mean people do not show an interest in it.

Burying it, on the other hand, means that less people will take an interest...I still shall, Earth my still, but I doubt people, like Earth, who joined afterwards...will.

 

 

Really?

So your proof for people supporting the merger is:

I.... honestly don't care.~ Apathy

does it matter? why not put them in the back of the tavern.~ Disinterest

New life is more likely if it's a separate forum, and if it's deleted my suggestion for a sticky explaining the concept would allow those potentially interested to start it back up.~ A quote supporting keeping it seperate or deleting it.

I don't see why they're against a merge either...~ A quote that supports your position

Yeah I have no idea why people don't like the idea Das.~ Disinterest

 

In a generous mood... three of them support you, one strongly and two out of apathy.

 

 

Compare that with the 14 from the poll who didn't/don't want them merged and I fail to see the relevance.

Or even the seven who definately want to keep things as the are(now), minus Rusco.

 

 

 

 

My idea for GM's is this: If they have an issue with a player, and wish for them to 'ban' them from the thread, and have a good reason, they send a PM to me, detailing the reason. If it's a good reason, such as the user is breaking the game's rules, is flaming, or going against the spirit of the game, and have been warned in the past, I ok it, and will enforce that ban. You however, cannot preemptively ban someone from a thread that you don't like, and you can't just ban someone because you don't like them.

Fair?

So...Basically the same?

You might want to send all the warnings to the admin as well...This is not an attempt to take a cheap shot at the adminstration, but when you send PMs warning people, those people may forget, and the current policy is/was not to talk to the moderator until a full account of the situation has been taken from the users. By which point...unless you actually do hate the user and are collecting evidence to defend yourself with at the trial...things will have moved on and you will have dealt with a million other things during the interrim.

 

On a related note, what is your policy on a GM who refuses to allow someone to play a game? Since that is effectively a ban in reverse.

Or, as the case maybe, a user who feels the GM is trying to circumvent the system for removing players by overpowering other people's weapons, thus killing the player and forcing them out in that fashion.

 

After all, it is essentially the GMs word against the user, and unless you have the pages and pages of PMs between them, and a keen understanding of the situation, how can you be expected to make a correct decision...

 

Since things things tend to be more complicated than 'Person X killed [Quest Character] and spoiled the game'...things tend to be 'Person X killed [Quest Character] because they felt they should for this, this and this reason, however person Y and Z feel that they have ruined the game for this, this and this reason.'

 

Replace 'this' with a paragraph or two about abstract concepts, though I am sure you understand that, since you have experiance of Hegemony arguements.

 

My opinion on the merger is this. As a test, when I first suggested this, I merged about a page of threads from the Library here, and no one commented on noticing it. I doubt anyone routinely checks the back pages of the forum. All the threads from Rusco, and the Library, would not be noticeable unless you ventured off the first page. If people are really worried about threads being revived, I could lock all the merged threads, though I doubt it's really necessary. If someone wants to try to revive a thread, by starting a new thread, go for it. It won't "ruin the memory" of the original thread.

There really isn't a good reason to delete or remove the library from public view. And yes, Archi, you could say you are the last poster there, but far from the only ever.

 

Locking them is a fine compromise.

Only issue is that then someone gets a good idea three months later and they end up getting unlocked.

As happened with the two hegemony threads getting merged...and the forums getting merged...one person said it was a good idea, moderator agreed, therefore it happened/will happen, despite people disagreeing on both counts.

 

 

 

Slippery slope arguement exists for a reason...

[Earth]

yo, arch. you do realize that that post count think was jsut because we hadnt had a good flip out for a while, right? cant say anything on the hex matter. wasnt there, cant be asked to go thru the entirety of the first and most chaotic hegenomy to find posts about anyone. ... and then, if you dont even care, then why kick up such a fuss about it?

[das]

I brought it up as a metaphor.

Always the problem with metaphors, people take them literally and get confused.

Yes, but using your own metaphor logic I pointed out that this forum was more of a "game" than off topic discussion - so it was a poor metaphor at best in my view as the content matter in both forums were dissimilar enough to where it was viewed as a "Grasping at straws" metaphor in attempts to establish an argument to prevent a merger. The content of the Tavern is unique, it's roleplaying, it does not match the content of OT, nor will it, and it has something forum games doesn't have in literary intelligence.

 

I am asking why people are not wanting red and green apples in a box (both roleplaying) and not apples and oranges (roleplay and games/OT)

 

So one person felt it should be merged, and you agree,

In this case the person supporting that merger, and suggesting it, is the person who is in charge of the section. You said it yourself, I'm not a roleplayer, I don't know the section, I'd like to think Wisp does and as a result I can back it, push it, and try to see why people are agaisnt it because I 110% trust my moderators judgment for the areas they run.

 

That sounds somewhat biased to me.

It's clearly a recommendation coming from someone with a recommendation that makes clear logical sense. One of the biggest counter arguments you had so far was the ability to mod the forums, it could not be done with the different tempos and Gming - Wisp here believes it can, and I fully believe Wisp is 110% capable of moderating these forums and enforcing GM decisions and keeping the tempo intact.

 

It can't be too much of a loved forum, if she moved topics and nothing was said, and only noticed by one person.

 

 

So...you listen to the users until you disagree with them, at which point you become empowered to make the right choice for them?

No, I listen to users so I can understand them and see why this or that.

 

And having the Admin tell the user that they have broken the rules for disagreeing with the rules is...to me...an abuse of power and only engenders further recriminations.

 

I don't know where you're going with the illusions of Banning for disagreement, but I welcome people disagreeing with our rules in my inbox daily. A few weeks ago I got arguments for sig adjustments and name changing, the user was not tactful, but his argument was right. and thus the rules were changed.

 

I'm open to changing any rule on this forum if the argument for it is logical. We don't ban people for disagreeing with the rules, I know we did, because in 2004, I took a ban for arguing the rules in a tactless jackass manner and became bitter for it, but I cannot name an instance where that has happened in the prior 2 years.

 

The postcount change was inevitable and a decision we made. We felt it was the right one, I still stand by my reasons for removal at the time. Hex is a can of worm's I wont open as that includes way to many confidential staff things, pm's from users here, and is a can of worms I won't and cannot open on this forum.

 

Chomsky for the rape comment? seriously? While a nice argument for freedom of speech, it just doesn't belong a forum that's accessed by 13 year olds

Swiftboating is very unbecoming though.

Can't say I've personally wrote anything involving rape on these forums (or any other for the trolls who have made it this far) - So not too sure what you're getting at.

 

Merely because people do not post there, does not mean people do not show an interest in it.

To me, thats an Oxymoron. that interest does not change if it's in forum X or Forum Y, and I argue if it does, the interest in it is so minimal it's hardly an argument

 

So your proof for people supporting the merger is:.

Apathy or not (how bold it is to assume how they feel about it nonwithstanding) it's clearly a non-issue to some active members of this forum. And Apathy from a tavern regular counts as much to me as someone who "reads them to unwind but does not post".

 

You might want to send all the warnings to the admin as well...This is not an attempt to take a cheap shot at the adminstration, but when you send PMs warning people, those people may forget, and the current policy is/was not to talk to the moderator until a full account of the situation has been taken from the users. By which point...unless you actually do hate the user and are collecting evidence to defend yourself with at the trial...things will have moved on and you will have dealt with a million other things during the interrim.

 

We have a documentation system for warnings for staff. You know it exists, i'm not too sure what you're arguing here since we do have a documentation system in place for the boards. It's not new, it's been in place for close to a half a decade for the most part. I'd be willing to make a GM documentation board or something even if it helps things along for the GM's.

 

 

On a related note, what is your policy on a GM who refuses to allow someone to play a game?

Thats for doom to decide. I don't see why it's fair or ethical to blackball someone from a game without a fairly valid reason though unless the GM is just an ass, or elitist.

[paul191600]

If someone is being an [wagon] on one of the threads, while clearly everyone (including the GM), don't appreciate it, why should they be forced to let them play? This isn't kindergarten. GM's want to set up good RP situations rather than deal with some troll's [cabbage].

[The Dark Lord]

If someone is being an [wagon] on one of the threads, while clearly everyone (including the GM), don't appreciate it, why should they be forced to let them play? This isn't kindergarten. GM's want to set up good RP situations rather than deal with some troll's [cabbage].

 

On Haven and Hearth, we kill those kind of people without hesitation. That's what makes us awesome.

 

Seriously, the whole issue with the GMs seems like someone is treating us like a bunch of pre-teens. Hmm.

 

http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10451&sid=f4fd9745214f8884612912511a671408

 

Basically this guy wanted to do something for [cabbage]s and giggles, so he acted like an ass and went on a spree in the game in order to try to grief people until they quit. Due to the political environment of the game, people helped those who were affected and killed the guy. In Haven and Hearth, this is how they "ban" people, so to speak.

 

In Hegemony, someone was giving us problems, and we wanted him gone. He was being a moron and was hellbent on ruining the game for everyone. Many people wanted him gone, so it was within our right to try to make the game environment enjoyable for everyone.

 

The same situation applies to what happened in the MMORPG and on the topic. A person caused grief for everyone. He didn't just attack someone and piss them off. Instead, he acted like a fool and spewed offensive comments throughout the entire experience (and not just on that thread). Because of this, people wanted him gone.

 

If we took both examples and applied the action that happened in response to Hegemony to Haven and Hearth, the players would have tried to kill the person and then the devs would have taken action against the players that tried to make the game environment more enjoyable.

 

We were merely trying to better the game environment, and the misguided judgements of a few individuals who have admitted that they were disinterested in the Falador Tavern caused needless grief to users who were playing fairly.

 

It is unwise for someone of a position of responsibility to force his narrow-minded bias down the throats of those who are unwilling while at the same time asking for their opinions. Likewise, when a group of fair-minded individuals contacted said person and plead for action to take place against another user who committed several infractions, it was a terrible mistake that those cries were ignored.

 

This is what breeds rebellion against said authority and causes future recriminations, which will only get worse. And indeed they shall.

[Earth]

... uh.. dude? i think they're just saying to trust Wisp. i mean, shes a fellow tavernite, she knows the ups and downs, and the admins are listening to her. so, ill listen to her. jsut makes more sense that way. AND could you stop acting like everty time an admin comes on the forum, its cause for a pseudo_soviet rusian rebellion? or something?

[Retech]

Socialism isn't confined to Russia or the Soviet Union. There are Socialist parties all around the world!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aRF4aN5C6U&feature=fvw

[Earth]

that sounded epic.

[Iconic]

... uh.. dude? i think they're just saying to trust Wisp. i mean, shes a fellow tavernite, she knows the ups and downs, and the admins are listening to her. so, ill listen to her. jsut makes more sense that way. AND could you stop acting like everty time an admin comes on the forum, its cause for a pseudo_soviet rusian rebellion? or something?

I WILL LISTEN TO AUTHORITY, THE AUTHORITY IS ALWAYS RIGHT, IT IS FLAWLESS, IT DOES NOT MAKE ERRORS AND IT IS MY LEADER!! ALL HAIL THE MODERATOR!

 

For gods sake, Earth.

 

 

I agree with Sere, I think if a person is ever banned the players who voted to ban them should recieve a penalty (such as losing soldiers).

[Earth]

huh?... dude, im listening to wisp on THIS matter.. jessus, man. you dont have to go all fanatic on me.

[Wisp]

... uh.. dude? i think they're just saying to trust Wisp. i mean, shes a fellow tavernite, she knows the ups and downs, and the admins are listening to her. so, ill listen to her. jsut makes more sense that way. AND could you stop acting like everty time an admin comes on the forum, its cause for a pseudo_soviet rusian rebellion? or something?

I WILL LISTEN TO AUTHORITY, THE AUTHORITY IS ALWAYS RIGHT, IT IS FLAWLESS, IT DOES NOT MAKE ERRORS AND IT IS MY LEADER!! ALL HAIL THE MODERATOR!

 

For gods sake, Earth.

 

 

I agree with Sere, I think if a person is ever banned the players who voted to ban them should recieve a penalty (such as losing soldiers).

Edel, I understand better than anyone here why you are against banning players. But having people be at a penalty is an awful idea.. If someone is messing up the thread, other people might not want to vote to ban them for fear of losing troops..

 

We're honestly making a big deal out of nothing here. This is something that's happened once in the 10 months or whatever of the Tavern. We don't need to have a contingency plan for every possible way a player could be disallowed from using a thread, it can be easily dealt with on a case to case advantage.

Simple way to do it:

If you are a GM and think a player is ruining a thread, PM the current tavern moderator.

If you are a player and think the GM is treating you unfairly, PM the current tavern Moderator.

[Nexaduro]

... uh.. dude? i think they're just saying to trust Wisp. i mean, shes a fellow tavernite, she knows the ups and downs, and the admins are listening to her. so, ill listen to her. jsut makes more sense that way. AND could you stop acting like everty time an admin comes on the forum, its cause for a pseudo_soviet rusian rebellion? or something?

I WILL LISTEN TO AUTHORITY, THE AUTHORITY IS ALWAYS RIGHT, IT IS FLAWLESS, IT DOES NOT MAKE ERRORS AND IT IS MY LEADER!! ALL HAIL THE MODERATOR!

 

For gods sake, Earth.

 

 

I agree with Sere, I think if a person is ever banned the players who voted to ban them should recieve a penalty (such as losing soldiers).

Maybe I misread, but I think he was for the banning of players.

 

Edel, I understand better than anyone here why you are against banning players. But having people be at a penalty is an awful idea.. If someone is messing up the thread, other people might not want to vote to ban them for fear of losing troops..

 

We're honestly making a big deal out of nothing here. This is something that's happened once in the 10 months or whatever of the Tavern. We don't need to have a contingency plan for every possible way a player could be disallowed from using a thread, it can be easily dealt with on a case to case advantage.

Simple way to do it:

If you are a GM and think a player is ruining a thread, PM the current tavern moderator.

If you are a player and think the GM is treating you unfairly, PM the current tavern Moderator.

What do you mean? I think we all understand the controversy of banning players. If everyone can't be happy then it's irresponsible to play favourites and put one over the rest. Especially when the ensuing argument merely fosters more resent between the players, the griefer, and those who intervene and ends with a widening rift between the community and the governing force.

[das]

... uh.. dude? i think they're just saying to trust Wisp. i mean, shes a fellow tavernite, she knows the ups and downs, and the admins are listening to her.

 

 

 

DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER.

[Earth]

Thank you Das for the compliment. Hopefully we won't make much more of a fuss

[The Dark Lord]

... uh.. dude? i think they're just saying to trust Wisp. i mean, shes a fellow tavernite, she knows the ups and downs, and the admins are listening to her.

 

 

 

DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER.

 

Isn't he just parroting exactly what you just said in previous posts?

 

@Earth:

 

Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about. Trust me. You're just hearing bits and pieces, not the full story.

 

Anyway...

 

... uh.. dude? i think they're just saying to trust Archi. i mean, hes a fellow tavernite, he knows the ups and downs, and the admins are listening to him.

 

Oh the irony!