Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:45:13 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:42:22 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:38:38 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:35:56 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably. Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.In what way?As I recall the pictures were being edited out/deleted reasonably quickly considering most of the staff were busy at the time. Certainly none were left there for three hours.Or do you perhaps refer to how we haven't just shot gatsby for the nonexistant rule he didn't break?Because when I get five minutes I'm going to look over the rules thread and see if any of them fit the situation from another angle.I'll do it for you.Quote5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice.Well would ya look at that. Quote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:51:32 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:46:45 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:43:39 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it. Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertainingWell that's incredibly helpful of you, could you point me to the enforceable part of the old bnet disclaimer?Where it says what kind of punishment that invokes?Or am I correct in thinking that bit is completely useless and is more a reference to where we came from in the first place?Strange that you would put that in the official rules then.
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:42:22 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:38:38 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:35:56 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably. Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.In what way?As I recall the pictures were being edited out/deleted reasonably quickly considering most of the staff were busy at the time. Certainly none were left there for three hours.Or do you perhaps refer to how we haven't just shot gatsby for the nonexistant rule he didn't break?Because when I get five minutes I'm going to look over the rules thread and see if any of them fit the situation from another angle.I'll do it for you.Quote5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice.Well would ya look at that. Quote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:51:32 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:46:45 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:43:39 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it. Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertainingWell that's incredibly helpful of you, could you point me to the enforceable part of the old bnet disclaimer?Where it says what kind of punishment that invokes?Or am I correct in thinking that bit is completely useless and is more a reference to where we came from in the first place?
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:38:38 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:35:56 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably. Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.In what way?As I recall the pictures were being edited out/deleted reasonably quickly considering most of the staff were busy at the time. Certainly none were left there for three hours.Or do you perhaps refer to how we haven't just shot gatsby for the nonexistant rule he didn't break?Because when I get five minutes I'm going to look over the rules thread and see if any of them fit the situation from another angle.I'll do it for you.Quote5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice.Well would ya look at that. Quote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:51:32 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:46:45 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:43:39 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it. Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertaining
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:35:56 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably. Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.In what way?As I recall the pictures were being edited out/deleted reasonably quickly considering most of the staff were busy at the time. Certainly none were left there for three hours.Or do you perhaps refer to how we haven't just shot gatsby for the nonexistant rule he didn't break?Because when I get five minutes I'm going to look over the rules thread and see if any of them fit the situation from another angle.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably. Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.
Quote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice.
Quote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:46:45 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:43:39 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it. Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertaining
Quote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:43:39 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it. Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.
Quote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it.
Quote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?
boo hoo
Can you Africans stop notifying me?
Quote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 05:47:08 PMCan you Africans stop notifying me?ohAlright I shall, I ought to go and look at the rules anyway. See if there is a boot that fits.
Quote from: Verbatim on August 30, 2015, 05:36:34 PMi'm just saying--i don't think this needed to be a 400 reply threadwe've overcomplicated such a simple issue--we're such a bureaucracyIt probably didn't but I think the first 10 pages or so were erm, complaint airing. I kinda just skipped them <.<
i'm just saying--i don't think this needed to be a 400 reply threadwe've overcomplicated such a simple issue--we're such a bureaucracy
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:49:35 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 05:47:08 PMCan you Africans stop notifying me?ohAlright I shall, I ought to go and look at the rules anyway. See if there is a boot that fits.I'll tell you where I'll fit, boy.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:40:47 PMQuote from: Verbatim on August 30, 2015, 05:36:34 PMi'm just saying--i don't think this needed to be a 400 reply threadwe've overcomplicated such a simple issue--we're such a bureaucracyIt probably didn't but I think the first 10 pages or so were erm, complaint airing. I kinda just skipped them <.<The twirling of the red tape began on page 3, when icy started posting--and exhibited a highly difficult, uncooperative, and obtuse demeanor, unconducive to anything that could rationally be considered justice or even progress. At least until LC showed up--but he's basically just Icy with power.
Just to point out something I noticed with what Verb is saying.Is Icy not a "Content Monitor"?When did that very specific role turn into "Staff spokesperson"?
GATSBY BEAT THE CASELOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
In plain english though, upon reviewing the rules and the like - despite icy not including the right section of part of it (GG) regarding reposting content that has been removed the following has been applied to him-Derailing-Reposting deleted imagesThe latter might be unfamiliar because it's a relatively recent addition to the ruleset, maybe a month or so ago. Basically it just means don't repost shit we've cleaned up.The spoiler rules add-on should be rolled out tonight, depending on whether Icy gets time to do it when he gets home. But hopefully that somewhat resolves the issue.I'm sure people will want to see more, and I do sympathise to some extent because you can't exactly unspoil something once it's been spoiled but I think this is the best way to approach it from a neutral standpoint (my position on the matter) because retroactive bans isn't a thing as I've said but he's been hit for the rules he did break last night all the same.So yeah, uh... questions I guess?Or if people are somewhat happy then that's also good.I'm not under the illusion that this is going to make it all flowers and rainbows but yeah, this is what'll happen for now.
Quote from: Frigid Farts™ on August 30, 2015, 12:11:45 AMWe are looking at all our options and seeing what will benefit the forum the most. That's all I can say right now, as the staff will continue discussing plans tomorrow and into Monday, most likely.>he colorized his text to make himself look more importantDude, you have some sort of pity position on the staff of an obscure forum on the Internet. Calm down and stop acting like a spokesperson for the president of the United States.
We are looking at all our options and seeing what will benefit the forum the most. That's all I can say right now, as the staff will continue discussing plans tomorrow and into Monday, most likely.
Quote from: Kupo on August 30, 2015, 06:41:14 PMQuote from: challengerX on August 30, 2015, 06:31:50 PMQuote from: Frigid Farts™ on August 30, 2015, 12:11:45 AMWe are looking at all our options and seeing what will benefit the forum the most. That's all I can say right now, as the staff will continue discussing plans tomorrow and into Monday, most likely.>he colorized his text to make himself look more importantDude, you have some sort of pity position on the staff of an obscure forum on the Internet. Calm down and stop acting like a spokesperson for the president of the United States.Icy outranks me and Kitsune, FYI.Yeah in being a fucking faggot. We barely even need mods, let alone monitors and a "Content Monitor™".
Quote from: challengerX on August 30, 2015, 06:31:50 PMQuote from: Frigid Farts™ on August 30, 2015, 12:11:45 AMWe are looking at all our options and seeing what will benefit the forum the most. That's all I can say right now, as the staff will continue discussing plans tomorrow and into Monday, most likely.>he colorized his text to make himself look more importantDude, you have some sort of pity position on the staff of an obscure forum on the Internet. Calm down and stop acting like a spokesperson for the president of the United States.Icy outranks me and Kitsune, FYI.
Quote from: challengerX on August 30, 2015, 06:42:57 PMQuote from: Kupo on August 30, 2015, 06:41:14 PMQuote from: challengerX on August 30, 2015, 06:31:50 PMQuote from: Frigid Farts™ on August 30, 2015, 12:11:45 AMWe are looking at all our options and seeing what will benefit the forum the most. That's all I can say right now, as the staff will continue discussing plans tomorrow and into Monday, most likely.>he colorized his text to make himself look more importantDude, you have some sort of pity position on the staff of an obscure forum on the Internet. Calm down and stop acting like a spokesperson for the president of the United States.Icy outranks me and Kitsune, FYI.Yeah in being a fucking faggot. We barely even need mods, let alone monitors and a "Content Monitor™".He literally writes the rules.
He literally writes the rules.
Quote from: Kupo on August 30, 2015, 06:44:59 PMQuote from: challengerX on August 30, 2015, 06:42:57 PMQuote from: Kupo on August 30, 2015, 06:41:14 PMQuote from: challengerX on August 30, 2015, 06:31:50 PMQuote from: Frigid Farts™ on August 30, 2015, 12:11:45 AMWe are looking at all our options and seeing what will benefit the forum the most. That's all I can say right now, as the staff will continue discussing plans tomorrow and into Monday, most likely.>he colorized his text to make himself look more importantDude, you have some sort of pity position on the staff of an obscure forum on the Internet. Calm down and stop acting like a spokesperson for the president of the United States.Icy outranks me and Kitsune, FYI.Yeah in being a fucking faggot. We barely even need mods, let alone monitors and a "Content Monitor™".He literally writes the rules.He words them, very different thing.And one that sort of shows the rest of the staff either just can't do it or don't care to do it properly themselves.
Being a scribe doesn't give him an excuse for being pretentious and taking this so seriously.
Quote from: Kupo on August 30, 2015, 06:44:59 PMHe literally writes the rules.But does he come up with them?
Lol TBlocks always adding his opinion where it's not wanted.
No you are not a mojahed stick to white knighting korra man it's all your good for
Regarding Spoilers
