ShockV1.89 Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Stop being so self-centered and assuming people's opinions are the same as yours. Now the mod brings it up to the next level, making it personal. I smell smoke, and we didnt start it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 As someone pointed out before, this whole thread is targeted at the mods and how we do things. So don't even try going that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 eh now i feel that this isn't a good thread anymore. Its posts like "Now the mod brings it up to the next level, making it personal. I smell smoke, and we didnt start it..." that - that is imature and does not even really keep to the topic at hand. Now I agree with gonk8her that this discussion is flamey and is going now where because some people have very closed minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 (would have posted this much earlier, but someone decided to switch the lucas forum ISP to AOL dialup. ) This thread is meant to be constructive criticism of how the mods do things. Not flames or criticisms of the mods themselves. Your post, on the other hand, takes on a decidedly hostile, aggressive tone. Chill. Now that I have more time to respond.... Seems to me nothing but an all out flame war would satisfy you. Who said this? I know I didnt. Flame wars are bad, they should be shut down. My criticism is that threads often get closed down because the mod "thinks that maybe there's a possibility that a flame war will develop." To be frank, I got a real kick out of you closing that jesus thread. It was a gag. A joke. Never meant to be taken seriously. And there were no indications that it was going anywhere other than that. But you found reason to close it. Why, because it had the word "jesus" in it? Because it had a (very) loose reference to religion? Cmon, now... The one person that expressed any clear displeasure with the thread also simply said that he'd stay away! And thats the perfect way to do it. If you're going to be that sensitive to "what could be a flame-war," then you could make an argument to many, many threads in this forum "could turn into flame wars." Heck, those Iraq vs. US threads get pretty heated, I dont see those getting closed. And rightly so, as although they are heated, they arent getting out of line. (well, last I checked...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by STTCT eh now i feel that this isn't a good thread anymore. Its posts like "Now the mod brings it up to the next level, making it personal. I smell smoke, and we didnt start it..." that - that is imature and does not even really keep to the topic at hand. Now I agree with gonk8her that this discussion is flamey and is going now where because some people have very closed minds. Whoah. Ok, so I defend myself and I'm immature, but the mod calls me self-centered and closed minded, and thats totally cool, right? All I said was that mods should not jump the gun- like I think they often do- on closing threads, and instead wait and see if they do turn into flame wars. If they do, shut em down. But let them get there first before just shutting it down. Whatever, read my above post... I'd hate to think that was having a closed mind or being immature... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 I would also like to point out, that many of the thread closings come at a request of another forum member, either via the report post button, or a pm or IM... So its not like we wander around looking for Random things to close that may erupt in a flame war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 For future reference, Shock, I was talking to Cjais, not you. So your anger at me is misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 sure you dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by Rogue Nine Seems to me nothing but an all out flame war would satisfy you. Might I point out that it's always been about you. "I don't mind flame wars." "I think they're good for the forums" "I think they're good debates" "I don't think that anyone gets offended." Stop being so self-centered and assuming people's opinions are the same as yours. What exactly do you propose then to solve this problem, eh? That is not what I meant. I already stated that I do not like flame wars - but by your definations, then I happen to like the threads you deem flamey. Such as this. This is interesting reading for once - and you're saying this is a flame war all of a sudden? How I propose we solve this: Change your defination of "flaming" (hate that word anyway) - from heated discussion to downright namecalling. I can handle being called close minded, stubborn, self-centered etc. - all the things you'd expect to get thrown at you in a debate. When it crosses the line to idiot, dickhead, f***ing loser etc - then someone needs to get a reprimand (post deleted/edited, PM). But if one misguided person comes aboard and starts slinging profanity, it should not endanger the whole thread. This is exactly what happened in the old evolution thread, and I know people can handle this as mature people. If several folks starts using profanity and harsh language, then it doesn't bode well for the thread, I agree - but give it a few posts to see if it sorts itself out. As someone pointed out before, this whole thread is targeted at the mods and how we do things. So don't even try going that route. No, not just you. As ACDC pointed out, people's opinions of flame and spam in this forum is sometimes skewed indeed. I can remember when a thread about a poem got called spam. I can remember where the participants began to use bigger words, and *wham* - away it went. eh now i feel that this isn't a good thread anymore. Its posts like "Now the mod brings it up to the next level, making it personal. I smell smoke, and we didnt start it..." that - that is imature and does not even really keep to the topic at hand. Now I agree with gonk8her that this discussion is flamey and is going now where because some people have very closed minds. Is this discussion flamey now? And going no where? By all means, if this is your opinion go ahead and assume that, but I say that if there's a slight oppurtunity for this thread to be salvaged from whatever blazing inferno it has reached, I say we keep it open in the name of good discussion. Shock was merely pointing out that it appears it's the mods who are starting the name calling, in this case, not us. And rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 As I recall...one of the original reasons for this thread was because someone felt that the mods were getting "trigger-happy". Then there's that whole thing about being "closed-minded" when it comes to letting threads run their silly courses. If that's not name-calling, I don't know what is. We're not really getting anywhere with this at all. This is good discussion yes, the kind of discussion I think you desire. And never have I said that this thread is flame-y. If it was, it would have been closed a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by Rogue Nine As I recall...one of the original reasons for this thread was because someone felt that the mods were getting "trigger-happy". Then there's that whole thing about being "closed-minded" when it comes to letting threads run their silly courses. If that's not name-calling, I don't know what is. We're not really getting anywhere with this at all. This is good discussion yes, the kind of discussion I think you desire. And never have I said that this thread is flame-y. If it was, it would have been closed a long time ago. We're not getting anywhere? Did you even read the post, besides the one place where I commented on your "flaming"? I have never said you were trigger happy. Shock said (and I agree), that you (plural) sometimes jump the gun too quickly in determining if a thread is flamy or not. I have not called you close-minded. I have not called you any offensive names as far as I can tell. I find the last sentence noteworthy. GonkH8er said this thread had reached the point of a flame war. STTCT said it. Rogue 9, from your first post you have misunderstood my message. I do not like flame wars. I do not like when you close harmless threads. I went off a tangent quickly and described the kind of forum I could tolerate (one with flame wars, profanity etc), but I know this is not what people in here want - and neither do I now, for the sake of them. But I do know we can handle heated debates and threads about religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ondrahosek Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 People as mods should be replaced by primitive AI mods. People are too biased to do such a work. This is a law: People can't take out actions to make all people happy. Now comes the question: Can this be done by computers? Sure, computers might insult someone, but I find there won't be so much uproar then. This is why: [*]A computer is objective. It either takes all the closing "wills" by other users, or it ignores them. A human is subjective, having friends, and when such a friend asks, (s)he doesn't hesitate. [*]Computers can take insults. These mods must be no real AI, the "feelings" code must be blocked out. They must be objective. A human won't take an insult so easily. [*]PCs don't make friends. Humans do form emotional attachments, which makes them biased.[/list=1] We need objective mods... Humans are too intelligent to do this job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 Besides the porn(and even then..) the forums are pretty much like Middle Schools right now. Hell,it's pretty much like later elementary.... Believe me, you guys seem like angels compared to 8th graders here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 [Force:Longpost] Originally posted by ondrahosek People as mods should be replaced by primitive AI mods. People are too biased to do such a work. [...] [*]A computer is objective. It either takes all the closing "wills" by other users, or it ignores them. A human is subjective, having friends, and when such a friend asks, (s)he doesn't hesitate. [*]Computers can take insults. These mods must be no real AI, the "feelings" code must be blocked out. They must be objective. A human won't take an insult so easily. [*]PCs don't make friends. Humans do form emotional attachments, which makes them biased.[/list=1] We need objective mods... Humans are too intelligent to do this job In principle I agree with you. In practice it just doesn't work. Scripted AIs are far too easy to circumvent. Take the cuss-word filter as an example: I can come up with at least a hundred different permutations, none of which would register as offensive in the filter, of a certain fourletter word that concerns itself with human reproduction. Now imagine how diverse I could make flames. There are filters and tecniques, of course, that can be used to block this out. But these cost precious $$, whereas the MODs do it for free (which I appreciate, mind). I think that it would be more effective to simply lay out some hard and fast guidelines. Flaming, in my opinion, is personal insult: Unfounded accusations, name-calling, ect., when targeted on a person or group of people. The last clause is very important. If someone said "Denmark is a ****ty state", I would not get offended. I would perhaps attempt to sway their opinion, but, ultimatly, it wouldn't offend me. If, on the other hand, someone posted that "Danes are a ****ty people", I would get offended, because that is an unfounded accusation against me as part of a group. Flaming posts should be deleted. Repeated flaming should result in a ban. Spamming: In my opinion anything that is off-topic, unsupported by arguments (as in the arguments not being there, not the arguments being bad), ect. This means that both of the above examples would be spam, even though only one is a flame. Off-topic spam could perhaps be moved to another thread, but pointless spam (such as "The Theory of Gravity is false on all accounts" (utterly lacks argumentation and has no point as an opinion, as the Theory of Gravity is not a matter of opinion)) should just be deleted. And of course the most important rule: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. If you see something that you don't like, but which doesn't violate the rules, just ignore it. This is one of the very few situations in life where this approach actually works. [/Force:Longpost] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.