This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - πΊπππππ
πͺππππ
Pages: 1 ... 506507508 509510 ... 1001
15211
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:54:28 PM »
I thought the community representatives would be the monitors while the ninjas were to enforce the rules.
There's no sense having two positions for what should be one position, though.
But we're talking about a place where you can't have both I thought.
Either enforcement or friendly.
Not necessarily, I'm just talking about which trait is more important in a moderator. We don't have a wide swath of people to choose from, though, so two positions may end up being the best choice.
15212
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:52:24 PM »
Moderators should moderate. I hardly think that having people who aren't Mr/Mrs Friendly as moderators would slow the flow of new users.
It's the users themselves that are what people see when they log on and go to the front page of The Flood and better moderators would weed out more unsavory users as they are better at that specific job. Weeding out bad users.
But having "friendly" members post here is beyond our control. Appointing friendly, welcoming mods is entirely possible.
I'm not saying we need "friendly" members. But if we have people on staff who are willing to go the distance and actually moderate then it's likely the number of "friendly" members will increase.
But being unfriendly isn't against the rules, nor is being a colossal cunt. There's nothing that a moderator can do to the unfriendly members. Which is why we need to compensate for that and have amicable ninjas who can foster a more welcoming site. It's that or start banning assholes. Which I wouldn't be entirely opposed to.
15213
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:50:05 PM »
Both?
In a perfect world, yes. But we're talking about which is more important.
Theres people on staff that are both friendly and enforce the rules.
Psy
LC
Comet
Yu (before he quit)
Exactly. They're not mutually exclusive, but some people are more friendly than rule-prudent and vice versa. Luciana falls into the former camp, while Verbatim would be the latter.
15214
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:49:08 PM »
I thought the community representatives would be the monitors while the ninjas were to enforce the rules.
There's no sense having two positions for what should be one position, though.
15215
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:47:58 PM »
Moderators should moderate. I hardly think that having people who aren't Mr/Mrs Friendly as moderators would slow the flow of new users.
It's the users themselves that are what people see when they log on and go to the front page of The Flood and better moderators would weed out more unsavory users as they are better at that specific job. Weeding out bad users.
But having "friendly" members post here is beyond our control. Appointing friendly, welcoming mods is entirely possible.
15216
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:45:44 PM »
Both?
In a perfect world, yes. But we're talking about which is more important.
15217
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:44:37 PM »
If you want community representatives, appoint them.
We do. They're called forum ninjas.
15218
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:42:17 PM »
May as well move the derailed discussion here. No Verb/Kupo antics please.
What should be more important in selecting new ninjas: them being prudent to the rules and moderating well, or them being amicable representatives of the community who will attract new members?
15219
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:40:13 PM »
Oh, that makes sense. I guess I have the advantage of being a meticulous player; I like to search every nook and read every log and such. A normal player could conceivably miss all that pretty easily. Come to think about it, with the scope of TL and how much it's talked about, it really should have more than two choices. A third one would be pretty essential if the game came out today. I'm glad you enjoyed most of the game, though, and I'm excited to see your review.
15220
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:37:17 PM »
That's not what they mean. This isn't democratic representation for legislation, this is representation as a PR front.
I mean, I wouldn't frequent a bar where the staff didn't at least try to appear amicable.
Then they're not representing anything.
The job of a moderator is to moderate. That should be a primary concern. Not whether or not they're 'likable'.
If likability was the first concern of people on the staff, then LC would be a regular fucking Joe.
Growth is our #1 priority, and there is very little rulebreaking going on. Attracting new members being our goal, amicability is more important than moderating well.
15221
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:34:47 PM »
If what you people want is representation, okay. Let's have a vote. Remove all current moderators and have an election for people to take their place. Have elections every 4 months or something.
I mean, if that's what you want.
Why would we do that? Representing a community isn't the same as winning a popularity contest. Cheat picks who he think will be the best for the job, and they represent the site after they're promoted.
15222
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:26:43 PM »
We'd need a more diverse staff that isn't 99% weeb to fully "represent us".
"weeb" is such a dumb and arbitrary category to lump people into. If everyone on the staff happened to be obsessed with True Detective, would you say we need some non-True Detective lovers on the staff for the sake of diversity?
Why is the kind of TV shows someone watches tied to "diversity"? It literally doesn't matter whatsoever.
15223
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:24:10 PM »
I'd say we'd need more friendly users in general than moderators. And to be honest, having 17000 weebs on the staff limits our ability to attract people more than having one guy that says "Fuck yourself" a few times. If the moderators represent us, then we need diversity on the staff that is sorely lacking.
Getting friendly users is beyond our control, appointing mods is. And "weeb" is such a dumb and arbitrary category to lump people into. If everyone on the staff happened to be obsessed with True Detective, would you say we need some non-True Detective lovers on the staff for the sake of diversity?
15224
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:21:51 PM »
A community manager wouldn't hurt tbh.
And they would do what?
Exactly. It would be a pointless position, and the ninjas are already de facto community managers. Having a friendly staff is essential to site growth. Anyone can enforce rules, that's cut and dry. Creating a welcoming environment is much more important.
15225
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:18:26 PM »
It's more than about enforcing rules.
It shouldn't be. You should only have one job as a moderator -- and that is, to moderate. It isn't your job to represent the community, let's get a community manager if that's what you want.
Like it or not, any mod on any forum represents the community. And honestly, there's not much rulebreaking that goes on here. If Sep7agon wants to grow, we need to attract new members, and having a friendly staff is a huge part of that.
15226
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:15:36 PM »
Amicability is the most important factor in a mod. That's a main reason why Luci was given the position.
It's more than about enforcing rules. It's about representing the community.
15227
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:12:54 PM »
I'd support Verb were he ever to be asked to be a mod.
Dumb move.
15228
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:10:45 PM »
Neither of you are are attractive enough to be considered attractive
big words coming from you lmao
Lame response. I am the absolute best judge of attractiveness on this site and only speak truth
but I'm The Ghost That Never Lies
15229
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:06:25 PM »
I dont think you're a boy or a girl. So you'll be 'it'
how dehumanising
But 'it's' human.
"It" isn't a word that applies to humans, animals, insects, or any sentient being. It applies to creatures. Monsters. Unknown, unseen entities.
15230
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:05:08 PM »
Neither of you are are attractive enough to be considered attractive
big words coming from you lmao
15231
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:04:34 PM »
I don't know why you've sunk so much time into this thread, Verb, there's no way you'll ever be a mod. Whether you deserve it or not.
15232
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:03:19 PM »
right to consume whatever you want, right to procreate,
1. By "consume whatever you want", I assume you mean drugs and other substances? Because I'd say that snorting coke or injecting heroin into your body when a child that you're responsible for is present is easily immoral. And if you don't mean just substances, but food as well, it is also immoral to eat animals.
2. Procreation is also immoral.
Okay, awesome. Now I have 2, maybe 3 solid arguments for unalienable rights that when exercised could be considered immoral.
1. I disagree. It's not immoral to do drugs unless you're affecting others. And eating animals isn't immoral, killing them is. 2. No it's not. Anyway, I hope you didn't miss the point that unalienable rights are debated and speculated upon by thousands of people daily. There are no solid, concrete "unalienable rights", because people disagree on what those entail. I simply told you the concept and gave you MY opinion on which acts are human rights.
15233
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:59:04 PM »
I will do whatever the community wants.
All right, it's 3 no 6 yes
are you going to ban me or be a pussy
I need a larger number than that
ok larger number achieved your move Mike
15234
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:54:13 PM »
Human rights aren't decided by governments, they're mulled upon by philosophers. Their very nature leads to debate and speculation.
So aside from freedom of expression and opinion, what are some other unalienable rights?
Right to self-harm/suicide, right to consume whatever you want, right to procreate, and right to food/water all come to mind.
15235
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:51:38 PM »
So would Trump be Swiper in this scenario?
15236
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:50:36 PM »
I don't believe in freedom of speech, I believe in freedom of expression and opinion.
What if it was my opinion that my daughter was a whore? And I expressed that to her everyday?
If you could clarify on the difference between speech and expression, that would help, too.
Holding an opinion is freedom of opinion. Letting others know that you hold that opinion is freedom of expression. Once others are aware that you hold that opinion, and make it known that they don't want you to continue to harass them with it, freedom of speech would allow you to do so anyway. Whereas freedom of expression wouldn't, since you've already expressed that you hold the opinion.
That's really not how the law is broken down.
We're not talking about laws.
That's still not how it works.
Who the hell made you the end-all authority on human rights? They're debatable, that's the point. @Ganon: The US has nothing like that, but that doesn't matter. Human rights aren't decided by governments, they're mulled upon by philosophers. Their very nature leads to debate and speculation.
15237
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:46:41 PM »
I don't believe in freedom of speech, I believe in freedom of expression and opinion.
What if it was my opinion that my daughter was a whore? And I expressed that to her everyday?
If you could clarify on the difference between speech and expression, that would help, too.
Holding an opinion is freedom of opinion. Letting others know that you hold that opinion is freedom of expression. Once others are aware that you hold that opinion, and make it known that they don't want you to continue to harass them with it, freedom of speech would allow you to do so anyway. Whereas freedom of expression wouldn't, since you've already expressed that you hold the opinion.
That's really not how the law is broken down.
We're not talking about laws.
15238
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:44:30 PM »
I think everyone should be free to say what they want, that shouldnt protect them from the result of their actions and they should expect those repercussions .
Lol, that's just called free will. You could say the same thing about literally anything.
15239
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:42:38 PM »
Walking into a crowded theater and yelling fire would be free speech
You do not have a right to incite panics or riots for malicious purposes.
Did you skim over the rest of that post? The very first line was "I don't believe in freedom of speech"
15240
« on: December 22, 2015, 09:40:41 PM »
I don't believe in freedom of speech, I believe in freedom of expression and opinion.
What if it was my opinion that my daughter was a whore? And I expressed that to her everyday?
If you could clarify on the difference between speech and expression, that would help, too.
Holding an opinion is freedom of opinion. Letting others know that you hold that opinion is freedom of expression. Once others are aware that you hold that opinion, and make it known that they don't want you to continue to harass them with it, freedom of speech would allow you to do so anyway. Whereas freedom of expression wouldn't, since you've already expressed that you hold the opinion.
Pages: 1 ... 506507508 509510 ... 1001
|
Show Posts