Uh what?

Kelas, this is what you should do:
1. Go on a vacation to somewhere with NO internet access.
2. Get wasted (at least five times), and forget all that.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!


I havn't seen weasel active on here in a while, and since he's gone back into his dark abyss things have seemed fine.
Sure, you may think Grif is on a little power trip and handing out some quite silly warnings, but it's for the good of the community as a whole. It will make the newer members step in line and finally bring some order around here.

Oh god I refuse to speak to anyone when wasted.

I'm more agreeable.


But yes, things have been better without Weasel's actions being public. Grif and the moderation team are his protege though.

Grif is nothing like weasel.
I have no problem with Grif having his name in red, and if you ask me, the other mods are a bit too forgiving.

When I got on and saw he was enlisted, I got a warm fuzzy feeling inside. <3
The feeling only lots of hard liquor can bring.

5 warnings for extremely minor things like posting off topic or posting without a picture in the epic moments thread doesn't constitute a ban in my opinion. The warning system has descriptions of warnings as well so we can decide whether it's really enough of an issue. Now, admittedly, there is in fact a warning in there stating that he would get a tempban next time, and that was missed. However, keep in mind that we are also human and sometimes miss these things.

This is your opinion. Nobody else in this thread seems to share it. What do you want us to do about it, ban ourselves because one guy says he doesn't like us?
And now it's time to visit Kelas' gallery of how not to make moderators listen to your opinion, because apparently he's not getting what I meant by singling out:




(For anyone not seeing why this one is glaringly wrong, read the post he linked to. Duh was giving an arbitrary number to illustrate why he disgareed with - guess who - Kelas)

But do those things warrant official warnings though? What I suggest though is the moderators be given a rigid set of rules to moderate by. No deviance, no judgment. Duh's arbitrary number is a bad way to show why he disagrees. A number like 200 is of course ridiculous and easy to disagree with. A number like 30-50 is harder to disagree with.

Not every warning we give out has equal weight. Maybe if we used some sort of %warn system, but that would be more trouble than it's worth.


I fail to see how telling you to move your off-topic discussion into a forum where it's on-topic is poor judgement.


Way to be nitpicky, I chose an arbitrary number for an example right after I said it was a silly idea. If anything this proves you're fishing for inflammitory ideas by ignoring inconvenient evidence.


Ad hominem attacks, bad form chap. If drinking affected Seraph's moderation abilities, then there might be a problem, but if you can't pull up some good hard and pertinent reasons as to where it has, then there is no point in bringing up the point.


He could be in this very room! He could be you, he could be me! He could even be- bad moderation?
Quite obviously you cannot prove from moderator logs your point, but if so many bad decisions were being made, would not other people be complaining? And not just one or two, but half of the board?


That, again, is because you can't see into the moderator subforum.


Anybody else hear this in the voice of some propaganda loudspeaker announcer dude?
To continue this discussion, if anyone has a problem with one user or a group of users, TELL ONE OF US. We are here to DO STUFF. We will bring it up in the moderator subforum and decide what needs to be done.


Well I think the rest of the forum has spoken on this point.


Awesome.

Since you only made one contributing statement, Duh, I'll reply to the first point you made.

Do you really think that moderating this forum properly and efficiently is more trouble than it's worth?

Kelas, so far, you've basically left us with this:

Anything we say that goes against you isn't counted as a "contributing statement"
The fact that we bring things up in Mod Chat and discuss them doesn't count as group moderation
Choosing the number 200 is such a bad judgment call, the whole moderation system needs an overhaul

I would say that all of these are kind of unreasonable.

Why, no, but I do think that adding in a new feature to confuse the situation more when the current system of adding reasoning to warn messages works fine enough is more trouble than it's worth.


If the other points weren't valid, a reason why would be awesome.

It isn't a silly idea unless you plan on using an arbitrary number.

The statement I made under that, in regards to the post that statement linked, is what is important.

Other people DO complain is the problem. Not all of it is public.

The moderation subforum is for all intents and purposes, useless. Not every moderator HAS to weigh in on another's actions. If moderation action had to go through approval by a majority, kind of like how some posts need to be approved, THEN it would be group moderation.

Only a part of the forum has spoken. We may never hear a lot of other user's opinions.

It is awesome, thanks.

You seem pretty lonely right now. I'd imagine if there was SUCH strong feelings against the current moderators, the tone of this thread would be a little different. But go on, invite them over if there are some people who agree with you. Who knows? Maybe they'll be able to redeem your inane arguments.

Kelas, I think you're part of the reason people don't speak up more. You're making such an ass of yourself that it makes people hesitant to appear grouped with you.

Yeah, the community isn't at it's peak now (not that I'd really know), but you don't need to vocalize it is so strongly you're an even worse problem.

Alright, name a number that isn't arbitrary.
To quote definition.com,

as opposed to based on a study of posts deemed contributory by a panel of judges I suppose?
My argument being, any number we could come up with would be arbitrary unless we did lots of research, which again is more trouble than it's worth for setting up what essentially would be an automatic post rating system. This is in reference to my questioning of your ad-hominem attack on Seraph?
I don't see how this proves the relevance of your statement. That's a different point than mine entirely.



Would they not have posted here then...?


Well, I do agree that would make sure all moderator actions would be approved by the group, but it would also slow down the moderation process to next to nothing, which is already somewhat of an issue.

That's true. However, it is not feasible to have every single member, many of whom have next to no experience with our forum community, weigh in.

YES. A study of posts deemed contributory by a panel of judges is exactly what is needed. No, it isn't too much trouble.

Why? Because this thread hasn't been alive more than an hour, that's why. Don't forget the small group of users that rage-quitted due to their harsh punishments.

It wouldn't slow things down if we had MORE moderators. Do you see how this all ties together now?

No it isn't feasible to get everyone to weigh in, but, we need more weight from real members, unlike Bentus, who, with his 1 post, will be ignored.

So... Something like the Obama Death Panel? But for bans instead of your health.