With all the spam across the forums I feel as if it's worth attempting to try to alleviate it with an open request to the community. If people have such a problem with member or members, don't validate them, it shouldn't be that hard. Further than simply putting them on your ignore list don't contribute to discussions about them as that only encourages it, most members that seek to be famous or failing that infamous are looking for validation and all those that drone on and on about those members are giving them that which they want, attention. It's getting to the point where you can't have a thread without the hubris of insecure individuals, pointless sarcastic droning, or just plain off-topic posts take over the thread. Is it really that hard to have a little maturity on the forum, a little effort to make the community something other than a cesspool of degenerates? Community matters. Getting new players to come and try the game, getting those players to stay, community affects all of it. A new player with no loyalty to the game will more oft than not move on when drowned in the toxic posts that currently run unchecked on the community. Are your 'inside' jokes or ego worth it? So you don't agree with a thread and don't take it seriously, nobody is making you post in that thread, nobody is making you validate those threads. You can say the same thing civilly that you can with sarcastic barbs in an attempt to play the proverbial class clown to your circle of friends. I can't be the only one that doesn't care to have to sort through valid posts and attempts at irony, off topic drabble, or narcissistic meanderings. You have plenty of forums to amuse yourself and your friends, it doesn't have to be a 'problem' for the general population.
wall of text aside, i do agree. the thing that i'm often hampered by is a general unwillingness to moderate. to clarify, if something is clearly out of bounds, it's out. if something is mostly out of bounds, probably out. but if a thread starts on topic, continues, and has people inserting their useless fluff every so often, while i do view that as spam, i am unwilling to clean every instance of it. and i don't think i have a good guideline at the moment for what happens if the thread turns from mostly on-topic (but with some spamfluff) to mostly spamfluff (but with some on-topic being drowned out). should i delete all irrelevant posts? having let them live in the first place, they've likely contaminated relevant ones. this gets ugly pretty fast. if i try to prune out specific parts, i inevitably run into the problem of which to cut should i discourage spamfluff in the first place? i tend to think of it as adding character to the forums, but there's no getting around that it's quite easy to circlejerk-OD on. and then i stop looking at the forums and forget for a while that i'm a mod at all. aside from all that, though, this recent cycle of epeen measurement has been more egregious than it should've been, and there are likely a few things i could have done but did not do about that. sort of in the same vein, if i see a thread from someone and i know before opening the thread that it's going to end with a bang, how long do i really want to tolerate either it or the person making it? (not just about mw24- i don't know what the odds are that, based on his last 50 threads, BP will insult the first responder to his next thread, but i suspect they're higher than i'd like. there are many other examples of poorly received/high maintenance thread creators, these are just among the more recent)
Would it not help if there was some sort of guideline set in stone? Is there even rules at all here? If there is a formal set I've certainly never seen it. It'd be hard to argue against a posted notice if X then Y happens should any issues questioning a decision occur. I'd imagine it'd be pretty easy to identify the cliques on the forum, those who play the forums for their friends or their own self-gratification even at the cost of everybody else. Whilst I generally see the Like systems as pointless attempts at ego-boosts specific types of individuals care about, it's pretty obvious whom stands with whom on matters by following it. If somebody says X against somebody can you not see an open 'grudge' as it were? Is not allowing such thing to continue encouraging it to occur more? "Hey I can say this against this user and get a positive reaction from Joe, Sally, Mike etc so I'm going to continue doing so until I stop getting the desired reaction." Is that not what is occurring when posts that are openly against a certain user or users get the same users liking those posts consistently or when the off-topic or inflammatory posts also get likes and are left to stay? "Character" of the forum aside and by no means would I call for martial law going from one extreme of the spectrum to the other, but it's getting a bit out of hand isn't it? Do you not feel as if there is a connection between the rise of such "character" and the ignoring of potentially problematic posts already on the forum? I don't think it's too far of a stretch to call it a result of a few broken windows, small 'crimes' that you might call "character" leading to more serious crimes. A vandal breaks a window of an abandoned building nobody cares about, not REALLY causing any harm, but that's allowed to stand unpunished, doesn't that send a message that, that sort of thing is tolerated? So as a result of the broken window from a known criminal, somebody that wouldn't cross the line decides too and then another and another and then people do start to be affected do they not? I wasn't aware you were a mod until you mentioned it. Is The there any indication of mod rank? The aforementioned 'character' aside what's wrong with "Forum Moderator" as a rank? I think at some point most would concede that some set uniformity isn't so bad, going out of your way to be unique can cause it's own problems as large as being a nameless cog. Was trying to avoid naming specific users for reasons, but mayhaps a nice warning shot across the bow of such users would prompt them to be more "productive" members of society. Since we are naming names though lets take Spieky for instance and this thread, yes it's in off-topic and yes I expected to be met with the same hammer sharp wit that is so popular, but what does the obvious sarcasm attribute? I made a comment using BurnPyro before as a prominent example and not some sort of attempt of "calling him out", that sarcasm attacking new users isn't needed and lo and behold he changes my post that he "quoted" to "BurnPyro touched me in weird places." and continued as he, as they do. Another about 4-5 posts in a row being a bit much and not directed at anybody just out of general minor annoyances when there is an edit button and lo and behold Spieky makes 4 back to back 1 word posts for the sake of attempting to be 'funny' and as I mentioned those posts got likes from his circle of friends. Communities get poor reputations that end up hurting the game, games like Call of Duty can of course survive such reputations out of sheer size, or even large forums like Serebii that more or less ride the coattails of yet another game that can survive such a reputation....and then you come to Pox. Is Pox really large enough, appealing enough to survive such a reputation? How much fresh blood does Pox actually get? How many fresh faces on the forum that actually stick around after being berated instead constructively critiqued or told why such an idea might not be a good idea? The argument that's popular is that "It's the internet get over it." and yeah to legitimately take offense to such words of such ilk is questionable at best IMO, but just because it's the internet people shouldn't have to just put up with such behavior. Behaviors on the internet protected by anonymity spurn far worse behaviors than most of those individuals would ever attempt in person simply because they're faced with little or no consequences? How many racial slurs are spread out through the mic's on Xbox Live? How many sexist remarks that make potential female gamers (some) just not want to be a part of such a community? There are other things a poor community makes people just move on at best or at worst can genuinely hurt somebody. Et arma et verba vulnerant, both weapons and words wound.
Are you suggesting that people might troll the like system? That's absurd. Also, don't name-drop people, that's what they want. Just a heads-up.
If there really isn't one, can we please have a rules thread? Lay out all general and specific offenses and the consequences for each offense. No not everything has to be strictly enforced, mods can't be expected to handle every single thing that happens, and a minor offense here and there isn't so problematic that it requires action. Maybe Off-Topic can be a bit more lax than the rest of the forums, otherwise all the shenanigans should be minimal. To be fair, something like making a harmless clever joke may not really contribute much to a topic, but that should be fine. There can still be fun and character around the forums.
to be clear, there is a theoretical ruleset. it's the terms and conditions (or whatever they're called). you know, those things barely anyone's read that are most easily condensed to "don't be a jerk and try to stay on topic" so far as any practical application goes. anyhow, dwlr, what you're getting at with your window-breaking analogy is something i'd already thought through- if they do it in the first place to something that no one cares about, or someplace where maybe it's even funny (let's go with graffiti as the analogous example instead), then it's more tolerable. right? but what about all those other hooligans who see that one kid with spraypaint and then decide to try their own hand at it, who fail to do much beyond inciting some lewd turf wars? where's the cutoff? can we afford to allow the first if we assume that it will encourage the second? if we rid ourselves of the first, will we rid ourselves of a positive experience for the community? can we rid ourselves of the first? at what point can or should we rid ourselves of the second (assuming we're not just coming in after everything has gone to Bane Shift, which is at least the easiest time to point at a situation and call it a failure)? as for a moderator status, it was a thing but since pretty much all the mod squad were on the brink of getting death threats (except KTC, whose person is inviolate and from whose body and soul flow eternal light. real tho, on the brink of death threats may be overplaying it, i wasn't paying a ton of attention, but threads they posted in were almost always turned into flamewars just because a mod showed up. i was modded after. there are other reasons, but this was the community response iirc), the mods were made less visible. i made a point of telling people, mostly for transparency's sake.
The rules, are dictated by the Code of Conduct. (I have a link my my sig if you need it.) This is a friendly if not rambunctious community. Knowing when something is or isn't against the rules is up to how we perceive it in the context of the thread. (A bit of a cop out explanation I know, but that the best way to say it.) However; that is why what we remove is not deleted but, simply removed. Other mods, and Senshu regularly browse the section. If they see something that was removed falsely or under questionable circumstances it is brought up. (Very rarely, but it does happen.) Unfortunately we are not omni-present. If you see something that you take offense to, or feel shouldn't be allowed/is against the rules. Please report it. It is the fastest way to get direct attention to the content in question.
The terms of service is more about legality than being a 'decent' person on the forums. It's more tolerable in the sense that nobody is hurt, but the point is leniency on something that is still 'wrong' can and usually does encourage others to do 'wrong' things as well which snowballs into more serious offenses until you have a virtual Detroit or Flint. That's really kind of the point, doing something to the initial offender who didn't 'harm' anybody, to make an example that yes it didn't really bother anything, but it's still against the 'rules', stops people from thinking they can try their hand at it with no consequences. The broken-window theory says no you can't. You don't have to go so far as banishing people and considering that some of whom I'd call offenders are prominent then yes banishing them would cause the community to lose something, but even those individuals shouldn't be beyond reproach. The individuals who are the offenders should have thick enough skin to deal with the consequences the whole "If you can't take it don't dish it out" sort of cliche. That's where moderator intuition kind of has to come into play, but a posted guideline of what should be accepted will again give validity behind your decision beyond just that of the whim of the moderators. You might not even have to do anything beyond deleting the post and sending a warning message to the individual, siting the reasons, then at that point those who repeat offenses with impunity can have 'harsher' consequences since they clearly don't care after being warned. I'd say in most cases those just following the pack the warning would be enough. I think that in and of itself says a great deal about the community's character, bowing to that 'pressure' rather than acting appropriately seems like it might be a root cause for why things are so out of hand now. How would it be if the police didn't do their job and let mobs run amok torching houses as they please or doing whatever else they want simply because they are a more or less united group of people? You can't make an argument that they represent the population and while you may not want to lose the prominent members what happens when they leave on their own anyway? During their stay they deter new people from playing and end up leaving themselves anyway so the end result is that because of their presence you could be in a worse predicament than if you had initially acted. Those members they deterred as a result of their poor first impression of the community could very well have become loyal members that support the game both monetarily and by adding to discussions and the general player-base, but instead they take their money elsewhere, someplace where they aren't greeted with a wave of negativity, because they weren't welcomed and thus never had a chance to form that potential loyalty. There are thousands of games out there after all, the community is as much if not more of a factor in deciding what to play for a lot of people when games start running together. Why play X generic shooter over Y generic shooter? If you're just going to play one and not split between them chances are the people make your decision. Just for an example, how many individuals when faced with the console wars chose to side with a system they weren't leaning towards because they had a group of friends that already played that system? So it's friendly to attack new players with dripping sarcasm? So it's friendly to start campaigns against individuals? So it's friendly to take a serious topic that an individual is looking for legitimate response and turning it into something completely pointless? That'd not be my definition of 'friendly'. Nobody is expecting mods to be omni-present, but the things that are allowed to stand even after a mod clearly has saw and potential contributes to a topic veering off-topic is a bit out of hand if you ask me. Besides do you really want to sift through thousand of reports? With this community I'd expect there to be something around that between the spam, general trolling, and 'hate' campaigns.
I have brought this up multiple times myself. We have a much more limited capacity for dealing with things than you would imagine.
just at the ↑ as for a moderator status, it was a thing but since pretty much all the mod squad were on the brink of getting death threats (except KTC, whose person is inviolate and from whose body and soul flow eternal light. real tho, on the brink of death threats may be overplaying it, i wasn't paying a ton of attention, but threads they posted in were almost always turned into flamewars just because a mod showed up. i was modded after. there are other reasons, but this was the community response iirc), the mods were made less visible. i made a point of telling people, mostly for transparency's sake. I think that in and of itself says a great deal about the community's character, bowing to that 'pressure' rather than acting appropriately seems like it might be a root cause for why things are so out of hand now. How would it be if the police didn't do their job and let mobs run amok torching houses as they please or doing whatever else they want simply because they are a more or less united group of people? You can't make an argument that they represent the population and while you may not want to lose the prominent members what happens when they leave on their own anyway? During their stay they deter new people from playing and end up leaving themselves anyway so the end result is that because of their presence you could be in a worse predicament than if you had initially acted. Those members they deterred as a result of their poor first impression of the community could very well have become loyal members that support the game both monetarily and by adding to discussions and the general player-base, but instead they take their money elsewhere, someplace where they aren't greeted with a wave of negativity, because they weren't welcomed and thus never had a chance to form that potential loyalty. There are thousands of games out there after all, the community is as much if not more of a factor in deciding what to play for a lot of people when games start running together. Why play X generic shooter over Y generic shooter? If you're just going to play one and not split between them chances are the people make your decision. Just for an example, how many individuals when faced with the console wars chose to side with a system they weren't leaning towards because they had a group of friends that already played that system? bit (i bet this is gonna look really awkward copypasted), i did say that was one of the reasons. it was not the only one, and i'm not positive it was the primary one. i'm not the guy to ask for this.
