Nope, never.

inb4ban

Just too late, already banned.

Nothing. Yesterday just champagne and wine.

Vrolijk kerstfeest, flikkers.

Clothes.
A belt.
Plane ticket to the US.
A ton of nice plates and utensils for when I get to move in with my girlfriend.
Money.

But, Sand, how would you feel about the idea of monitors being able to dole out "ultra-lite" bans of anywhere from 30 minutes to like two hours, in order to stop an immediate shit-flinging or undesirable behaviour, which isn't exceptionally serious?

Something like that would require a serious discussion on the monitor role. At its conception, the monitor position was not strictly speaking supposed to be staff. Cheat himself said that they are not some kind of lite-mods, but that they are intended to be exemplary members that can provide a bridge and means of communication between the members and the mods. They are there to help the community, bring certain things to the attention of the mods and communicate the staff's interpretation of certain rules to the general members.

I'm not saying all of this is always the case here, which is only natural for a community our size, but the monitors have their tools to help others, not to regulate them. For that purpose, they can move, merge and sticky threads, and now lock them in the face of Anarchy.

I'm not opposed to actually discussing and overhauling this, but there needs to be a real debate about what monitors are supposed to be and do first.

Quote from: Flee on December 24, 2014, 06:04:00 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 24, 2014, 05:46:34 PM

Yeah, that too... even though... I can't imagine what it must be like to be influenced by the majority opinion.

This was a pretty significant topic in my Legal Psychology class. I don't remember all that much of it, but it's pretty generally accepted that even if you don't explicitly and consciously make a decision based on the majority, it still plays a role in our subconscious.

I'd like to see proof or evidence of that. I'm not doubting you, but I mean, automatically, it's just inherently a dubious claim, isn't it?

That's not something I can provide just like that. I took this class almost three years ago and I'm not going to look for my notes at 1:30 in the morning.

It does make sense when you think about it though. As far as I remember, the logic behind it is that seeing the majority's opinion first will always set some kind of anchor point or standard that people will subconsciously use as a reference point when they form their own opinion. Instead of devising a completely unique and uninfluenced stance, people will conjure up their opinion in agreement, opposition or alteration of the majority opinion.

It's similar to answering the following questions. When the question is merely "what do you think of...?", people will reason and decide differently than when theyr' asked "what do you think of... and do you feel like it is indeed recommended?".

The reasons I saw this in my legal psychology class is because of how it can influence a jury's and defence attorney's decision. When someone is faced with the question of "what kind of punishment do you think this criminal deserves", they are a lot more inclined to come to a different answer when they're informed of what the public prosecutor (being in this case "the people" and the majority) is asking for than when they're not. The explanation lies again in the fact that people will subconsciously use the majority's opinion as a reference point and form their opinion in relation to this opinion.

Of course, the better informed someone is and the more they've thought about something beforehand, the less likely they are to actually be swayed by the majority opinion. But it does subconsciously play a role when you first get to see what others think before you make your own opinion.

So yeah, I can't really provide you with a source, but I still hope you at least get what I'm trying to say. I briefly looked for "majority opinion bias in trials" on Google but couldn't find much. Maybe Mr. Psy knows more about this.

Yeah, that too... even though... I can't imagine what it must be like to be influenced by the majority opinion.

This was a pretty significant topic in my Legal Psychology class. I don't remember all that much of it, but it's pretty generally accepted that even if you don't explicitly and consciously make a decision based on the majority, it still plays a role in our subconscious.

3: Ban ponies.

I'd sooner ban you, you cheeky cunt m8.

Quote from: Fagcicle on December 24, 2014, 02:46:44 PM

Quote from: Sento on December 24, 2014, 02:45:25 PM

Quote from: Flee on December 24, 2014, 02:43:13 PM

Regarding communication between the mods and members, I had a recent suggestion that basically included a response window with each report. Every mod dealing with a report would then provide a quick and anonymous response on what they did and why. Does anyone feel like this would be a good idea?

The anon part has merit.
But why not just PM the user?
This is about communication, why not use the tools that are already there and for that particular use?

Because Flee's system would link right to the report - there is already a comment system on reports for moderator's to use to add comments - those comments would be sent to the reporter as Anonymous PM's.

So it would say

"Report received, looking into"
"Warning given"
Etc.

But then, why not just automate it if you go that far?

Because, at the point it becomes automated, it's impersonal and loses the whole "communication" aspect.

PMs work and are there for use.
You said yourself that Psy already does a lot through them. Why is this different?

It just seems that hiding which mod is doing the moderating, links back to the whole "mods are afraid of backlash when they moderate" thing I and others have talked about.

Either get shit done and drop the popularity actif this is the case, or step down and let someone willing to take hits do the job right.

Let me just go copy my other post to explain this better.

Regarding communication between the mods and members, I had a recent suggestion that basically included a response window with each report. Every mod dealing with a report would then provide a quick and anonymous response on what they did and why. Does anyone feel like this would be a good idea?

Yes.

Even you, Byrne? Tu quoque, fili mi?

Things will get better Psy.

Quote from: Flee on December 24, 2014, 05:28:25 AM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on December 24, 2014, 05:20:56 AM

He's bad at Dark Souls so that's reason enough to dislike him in my book

Filthy casul

1v1 me m8, Oolacile Township chaos zweihander unlocked deadangles only fucker, I'll wreck your mum.

PLOT TWIST my mum is dead

Yeah because I wrecked her so hard.

He's bad at Dark Souls so that's reason enough to dislike him in my book

Filthy casul

1v1 me m8, Oolacile Township chaos zweihander unlocked deadangles only fucker, I'll wreck your mum.