Off-Topic Area: A suggestion/request

[Qloof234]

@Q: This is not a cheating scene forum. Punishment discussions should always be kept in PMs.

What? All I'm saying is that there should be a Trash forum that new users can look at to get an idea of what not to post or something. How is that cheating?

[Nobody]

I've always been a bit of a "loner" or "outcast" in real life,

Me too. I think I'll make a new topic to reply on your post, in a few days. You said some interesting things.

This is a forum not a chatroom.

That's true, but when I look at Nobody's post about Wefight, it does seem to me a chatroom. However, it's not bothering me at all. I think {N/n}obody will reach the end of the rainbow. (Kooky; go for it )

But believe me; there is really no pot with gold there.

wait what

I didn't mean anything about post count. I don't even care about post count, I was trying to say that important yet old posts may be lost if we use the Only Twelve Posts system.

[tyteen4a03]

@Q: This is not a cheating scene forum. Punishment discussions should always be kept in PMs.

What? All I'm saying is that there should be a Trash forum that new users can look at to get an idea of what not to post or something. How is that cheating?

Explained via Skype.

Anyways the point is not to spoil users involved in the 'examples'.

[Marinus]

Nobody, I see what's your point, and I wouldn't say that it's important to the two of you how many posts you made. I only meant to say that because of your way of posting in Wefight, Kooky and you, are the top 2 posters of this forum within a year. And to be honest, I don't have any problem with it. About the pot with gold was just a joke.

Explained via Skype.

Makes me curious.

Anyways the point is not to spoil users involved in the 'examples'.

May I assume, that's talking to me? Well, maybe that's your point, but not mine. Believe me, if it was about a user who makes 1 or 2 spam posts in a year, I wouldn't have done such things. But since it's about someone who made "A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF SPAM" lately, it's quite a different story.

Edit: Oh wait, you were talking about the trash forum probably. I think I'll say more about it later. (maybe)

[Midnight Synergy]

I like the idea of a "what not to post" area with some of the spam/trouble some posts transferred there. Originally, I thought I would just have a hidden section for moderators to move things to (and also to discuss anything related to posts/rules if necessary), but perhaps having one open and one hidden section might be even better.

So it looks like we might go that way for a trial... and Qloof seems to be willing to be one of the moderators for Off-Topic. The remaining question, however, is what the rules are for Qloof (and a second?) to follow. Tyteen has posted some rules examples from his own forum, what do others think? Without good guidelines, Qloof might find himself at odds with members who don't agree with his decisions - and I don't really want to put him in an situation like that.

[^_^]

Um, as long as Stinky user is a moderator, i guess Qloof or someone else should get access to Stinky.

[tyteen4a03]

Um, as long as Stinky user is a moderator, i guess Qloof or someone else should get access to Stinky.

Nope, Stinky is only a test (and release, etc) account.

Qloof might find himself at odds with members who don't agree with his decisions - and I don't really want to put him in an situation like that.

He is a trained monkey in that kind of situations

[Qloof234]

I think Tyteen's rules are a good idea as well, plus I'm already used to them from 3.s/WonderForum moderation as well.

Qloof might find himself at odds with members who don't agree with his decisions - and I don't really want to put him in an situation like that.

He is a trained monkey in that kind of situations

wat?

[Marinus]

.....but from what I see in other forums they either have warning/infraction kept to themselves and the mods or not show to the user at all. ..... Marinus about spammer-has-mod-as-friend-thing: Moderators should always be clean. Regardless of the relation of the rule breaker, he still broke the rule. A mod is required to not do such things

Yes, they should be. Also a king, an emperor, a president, a senator etc. should be... Let me say that I don't distrust Qloof or a potential second/third moderator; I just want to say that nobody is 100% objective. Let me ask you Tyteen and all of you:

Keep 2 forum-members in your mind, A: the one who you like most, and B: the one who you dislike most, who's always annoying and bothering you. Both people make exactly the same breaking-of-rules. If you were moderator wouldn't you rather say to A: "I trust that you don't do it again, so let's forget about it this time, my friend", and to B: "You get an official warning"? If I had to answer that question, I wouldn't dare to say 100% sure. Also, Lady Justice has to be blindfolded, (no matter if she's represented by one person, or by a small group) which means that the general public has to keep its eyes wide open to check if she doesn't take a sneaky peek.

Of course it's not my intention in the first place to get "criminals on the pillory", but it definitely will be a good deterrent. Also it won't be good if people go look at the "spam/trash subforum" with the intention of: "Well, let's see who's been bad today." But on the other hand, there should be a way for everyone to get access to all available information.

I said several times before that I don't want to be a moderator. Which means that I don't want special powers to (re)move posts and such. All I want to moderate, is doing it my own way, which you all probably know what that is: By a good serious reasonable talking / discussion / debate, sometimes mixed with a bit humor. And I only can do that if I have access to all secret information. Or, even better, no secret information at all. Because, if the well-being of this forum depends on secret information sent by PM or such, it can cause the same situations as happened in the past.

- it can be easy to find out. (How I do it: let another mod handle it)

In case we have only one adm. and only one mod. it will mean in my opinion that the adm. has to check all the mod's activity's, which won't be good for either of them.

3. I am lost here.
4. A 'massive amount' doesn't have a static limit - common sense will help. Individual cases means warnings will only stack if the user is spamming again in a short period of time since the warning is given.

A suggestion on using 3.studIo AS A REFERENCE is because it is more updated and prevents every out-of-the-rule happenings in this forum currently from happening. E.G Profanity (in the old rule it only stated that to Play nice, and did not actually ban profanity)

That's pretty contradictory in my opinion. It seems you want rules that clear that it's always 100% sure if a rule is broken or not. (which is definitely not possible in my opinion) On the other hand, to decide how many times a rule may be broken, in how long time, also, after how much time a breaking-of-a-rule can be forgotten, (things which are actually easy to describe in the rules) you want to use "common sense" for! Who's common sense? Mine, yours, Qloof's, Patrick's?

So for the moment I stay which my my suggestion here: http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=258833#258833 which makes clear all those things, without common sense needed. Just in case it's going to be decided that a public subforum for that purpose will be not appropriate, my second choice will be the way Patrick did last day, giving a user an official warning in public, but only to be found by a good search. (Still keeping the "how many times in how much time, and the Statute of limitations)


Next part may be a little bit off-topic, since it's not a rule about the off-topic's but a general rule instead; About the avatar/signature stuff. I think the current rule is sufficient if it's about the size. However, there's nothing said about flashing /moving pictures. I would like to suggest: A picture in avatar or signature may be animated, but it should not look like a movie. The area of the moving part may be not bigger then 25% of the total surface, also depending on, how contrasting the colors are. (I have to admit; a bit common sense is needed, but I don't see another way yet) Also: using a picture of someone who or something which stands for "evil", such as Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Satan / Lucifer / the devil are not allowed.

Tyteens other rules: http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=258547#258547

-Personal... Should be a strong advise, but not a rule which must be kept. Everyone is free to post his/her own personal information things. If it's about someone else, of course only with the otherone's permission.

- Signa.... personal photos > not agreed. If I would want to see my own face in my avatar, should be no problem. About the rest I mostly agree. Only I would like to have a better description such as: Don't use pictures which are related to evil, violence, politics, religion, racism, and sex. Also what I said about it above here in this same post.

- PG things (and also profanity which is 3 rules further.) For this I would also have a more clear definition. All that I can do is search on Wikipedia and find that PG(13) is such as an age-related-limit for movies, and a small list of "swear" words. Lots of common sense needed here.

If you are uncertain as to whether a certain subject, word, image, or link is allowed, contact a moderator or administrator before adding it to this site.

Not agreed. (At least not a moderator.) Because that means a moderator /administrator should color an unclear rule by his/her personal opinion.

If you want to use this rule, there should be a complete clear list of things which are not allowed. That's probably impossible, so let's keep it on common sense (and a good debate. )
BTW, I didn't think of racism, added it to the avatar rule, after I read it in this rule. I may have forgotten more things though.

- Langua... OK, but may be broken once in a while for a joke or such. Addition: Please write correct English which can be found on a translating site (such as: http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/ ) Also, if you mean "you are" you may say "you're" but not "your" because that means something different. (I did make that mistake a few times, but I try not to do.)

- Spamm... Fine! Can also be discussed later, if a certain post is spam or not. Addition: If someone asks you why you post something which may be spam, please give a reasonable answer. And please be consistent.
Also do not make unnecessary quote's. Quote only that sentence which you are replying to. (maybe this should belong to another rule instead of the spam-one though, but I'm not sure which one.)

- PM things... OK, but is hard to be kept since an admin can't read other people's PM's

- Troll.... OK. (I think I'll say more about that, related to Muzo's rules of the thumb.)

- Bump... Do not Bump, unless you have really something to say what you forgot to say earlier.

- Posting sty.... OK Addition: Don't use CAPS without a good reason.

- Naming.. Not agree: Offending in public > Talk about it in public.

- Impersonating... 1st part agreed. 2nd part: If I think someone does things which are not appropriate, I don't like to act sneaky "behind his/her back."

- Religion... Fine!

- Multipl... OK.

- Postin... OK.

- Thread... The mod should leave a link to the moved topic.

- Profile.... Not sure what that means, but I guess it's OK.

- Sign... Do not mention a rule more then once.


I think if these rules are going to be used, they need to be adapted a bit, some merged, and integrated into the existing rules, using a clear numbering.

I think Muzo's rules also should be used: http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17284

1. Not quite sure what that means.
2. OK
3. OK
4. Well sometimes I use to say something serious, but with a bit of humor. I think that's not really sarcastic, but when someone doesn't quite understand, I use to explain clear what I mean without the humor. I think if we keep it that way it should be fine.
5. OK!
6. OK
7. OK
8. OK
9. Well, maybe some reasonable talking or critical questions without being angry may be fine. If you start getting angry; ignore them.
10. OK

BTW, Muzozavr, several people have suggested you for moderator. Several more, including Patrick, have agreed with that. I saw no one who disagreed, (well, maybe one person who only came here to complain a bit.) so, if I may ask you, what's your opinion about:
- All these stuff? (this entire topic)
- Being a moderator?

... I'm already used to them from 3.s/WonderForum moderation as well.

... He is a trained monkey in that kind of situations

wat?

Well, it seems you already answered your own question, even before you asked it.

Oh, and before I forget: Anyone dares to quote this entire huge post; He/she must die!

[^_^]

^Too long to read.

So how about a mod, Patrick?

[Marinus]

^_^ If you don't have the patience to read it, please don't comment at all, instead of saying "too long to read". Also, Patrick has stated his opinion about a mod already in his previous post, so why that useless question? Or should I say again: Go to school and learn to read.

Please remember that you already got a serious warning, less then 24 hours ago, considered to be your last one!

[Sammy_Bro]

Yeah, ^_^. If you make another spamish post, your face will be wiped off the whole forum (or something, maybe i can call it 'ban')!

[^_^]

>something in here<

NO. You learn to read, he didn't said Qloof/Muz/someone/whatever will be the mod, but that they may be.

[Marinus]

So it looks like we might go that way for a trial... and Qloof seems to be willing to be one of the moderators for Off-Topic. The remaining question, however, is what the rules are for Qloof (and a second?) to follow. Tyteen has posted some rules examples from his own forum, what do others think? Without good guidelines, Qloof might find himself at odds with members who don't agree with his decisions - and I don't really want to put him in an situation like that.

^_^, That part implies clearly, that he agrees about Qloof being a moderator, and since Qloof accepted, he will be a moderator.

So please stop spamming now.

Edit: Patrick another spam post below by ^_^

[^_^]

DON'T THINK MY ENGLISH IS ON 'BEST' RATING.

[tyteen4a03]

OK so I quoted this thing. I must die

.....but from what I see in other forums they either have warning/infraction kept to themselves and the mods or not show to the user at all. ..... Marinus about spammer-has-mod-as-friend-thing: Moderators should always be clean. Regardless of the relation of the rule breaker, he still broke the rule. A mod is required to not do such things

Keep 2 forum-members in your mind, A: the one who you like most, and B: the one who you dislike most, who's always annoying and bothering you. Both people make exactly the same breaking-of-rules. If you were moderator wouldn't you rather say to A: "I trust that you don't do it again, so let's forget about it this time, my friend", and to B: "You get an official warning"? If I had to answer that question, I wouldn't dare to say 100% sure. Also, Lady Justice has to be blindfolded, (no matter if she's represented by one person, or by a small group) which means that the general public has to keep its eyes wide open to check if she doesn't take a sneaky peek.

It is always suggested that a moderator should talk to another moderator in case if he is confused what action should be taken against the member.

As for me, no. Both A and B broke the same rule. As a moderator, or rather, a judge here, they have the responsibility to NOT take personal opinions on a subject as a factor of judgement. In Hong Kong (and other conuntries I believe), if member of a side has relations to a judge (friend, foe, whatever) he should (he must?) let another judge handle the case. Same for forum.

Of course it's not my intention in the first place to get "criminals on the pillory", but it definitely will be a good deterrent. Also it won't be good if people go look at the "spam/trash subforum" with the intention of: "Well, let's see who's been bad today." But on the other hand, there should be a way for everyone to get access to all available information.

Humans have the ability to guess. If the user posted a lot of profanity in each of his posts, would it make sense to make the post public and tell the kids 'Do not swear'? It would only probably teach the kids about profanity. Same for flaming and trolling. Kids do not have the ability to correctly think and judge (there of course is expections but rare). Yes, I agree on a topic of examples what NOT to do, but the examples has to be cleaned up to be kids friendly (e.g:

-Trolling/Flamming
Trolling is posting something rude or offensive on purpose. Flamming is a verbal attack on one or more users. Please consider other's feelings before posting. There is a difference between posting your opinion ‘Cats are nice, but I’m a dog lover myself.’ and saying ‘Cats suck, and you’re an idiot for liking them.’ Trolling and Flamming are not tolerated and will be deleted.

).

BTW: If Wonderland was not family friendly I won't care about this, really.

- it can be easy to find out. (How I do it: let another mod handle it)

In case we have only one adm. and only one mod. it will mean in my opinion that the adm. has to check all the mod's activity's, which won't be good for either of them.

Moderator logs (and user complains via PM/email) could be handy.

3. I am lost here.
4. A 'massive amount' doesn't have a static limit - common sense will help. Individual cases means warnings will only stack if the user is spamming again in a short period of time since the warning is given.

A suggestion on using 3.studIo AS A REFERENCE is because it is more updated and prevents every out-of-the-rule happenings in this forum currently from happening. E.G Profanity (in the old rule it only stated that to Play nice, and did not actually ban profanity)

That's pretty contradictory in my opinion. It seems you want rules that clear that it's always 100% sure if a rule is broken or not. (which is definitely not possible in my opinion) On the other hand, to decide how many times a rule may be broken, in how long time, also, after how much time a breaking-of-a-rule can be forgotten, (things which are actually easy to describe in the rules) you want to use "common sense" for! Who's common sense? Mine, yours, Qloof's, Patrick's?

Yes, I have to admit I used the wrong word (again, d'oh).

Who's common sense? The mod's own common sense. I am sure Qloof isn't crazy, and Patrick is not going to hire somebody who just moderate by following a strict number. (BTW, that thing is called a bot.)

So for the moment I stay which my my suggestion here: http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=258833#258833 which makes clear all those things, without common sense needed. Just in case it's going to be decided that a public subforum for that purpose will be not appropriate, my second choice will be the way Patrick did last day, giving a user an official warning in public, but only to be found by a good search. (Still keeping the "how many times in how much time, and the Statute of limitations)

Moderator and Administrator's decision are final. If a user thinks the decision is wrong, they can reflect it to the staff by PMs (punishment, private matter) or by opening a topic about it (general, public matter).

Next part may be a little bit off-topic, since it's not a rule about the off-topic's but a general rule instead; About the avatar/signature stuff. I think the current rule is sufficient if it's about the size. However, there's nothing said about flashing /moving pictures. I would like to suggest: A picture in avatar or signature may be animated, but it should not look like a movie. The area of the moving part may be not bigger then 25% of the total surface, also depending on, how contrasting the colors are. (I have to admit; a bit common sense is needed, but I don't see another way yet) Also: using a picture of someone who or something which stands for "evil", such as Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Satan / Lucifer / the devil are not allowed.

Flashy/Moving pictures should not be banned just because of one person complaining about it. If you think someone's sig/avatar pic is too annoying for you, you can always ask him (nicely) to remove that pic.
For "evil", this is covered by the PG rule.

Tyteens other rules: http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=258547#258547

-Personal... Should be a strong advise, but not a rule which must be kept. Everyone is free to post his/her own personal information things. If it's about someone else, of course only with the otherone's permission.

The internet today is very dangerous. To protect the safety of users, this rule should be enforced.
(But yes, enforcing it too much can be bad, so we allow a bit of personal information, but only general information (e.g boy or girl, ROUGH age group, Country you live in (the most is state for USA, 1st city for other countries), etc. I thought of banning IM information also, but I think this is too much for a PG forum.

- Signa.... personal photos > not agreed. If I would want to see my own face in my avatar, should be no problem.

See above response about internet safety.

- PG things (and also profanity which is 3 rules further.) For this I would also have a more clear definition. All that I can do is search on Wikipedia and find that PG(13) is such as an age-related-limit for movies, and a small list of "swear" words. Lots of common sense needed here.

If you are uncertain as to whether a certain subject, word, image, or link is allowed, contact a moderator or administrator before adding it to this site.

Not agreed. (At least not a moderator.) Because that means a moderator /administrator should color an unclear rule by his/her personal opinion.

PG is parent guidance. By PG, content delieverd by the site should be suitable for teenagers to view, and parental guidance is required for kids (generally everyone less than 12 years old). Examples are Pirates. Pirates can be cool, but some pirates content may involve violence (those killings) and the encouragement of hijacking. Parent Guidance is required here, to avoid kids actually go and hijack someone's home and use a knife to kill the owner.

- Langua... OK, but may be broken once in a while for a joke or such. Addition: Please write correct English which can be found on a translating site (such as: http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/ ) Also, if you mean "you are" you may say "you're" but not "your" because that means something different. (I did make that mistake a few times, but I try not to do.)

Basically if most of the users and most of the mods/admins understand then it should be no problem.

- Spamm... Fine! Can also be discussed later, if a certain post is spam or not. Addition: If someone asks you why you post something which may be spam, please give a reasonable answer. And please be consistent.
Also do not make unnecessary quote's. Quote only that sentence which you are replying to. (maybe this should belong to another rule instead of the spam-one though, but I'm not sure which one.)

It belongs to the Posts have to be readable rule I think.

- PM things... OK, but is hard to be kept since an admin can't read other people's PM's

Yes, I have to admit it will be a bit tricky. Although Patrick can just go into phpMyAdmin (database management tool written in PHP) and see all your PMs, it is not encouraged and violates the law (?), it would be better if the receiver report such cases to a mod/admin.

- Naming.. Not agree: Offending in public > Talk about it in public.

It can lead to trolling and flaming. If a user offended you in the forum you should take it to the mods/admins (since it probably broke a rule).

- Impersonating... 1st part agreed. 2nd part: If I think someone does things which are not appropriate, I don't like to act sneaky "behind his/her back."

Back-seat moderating does not help the situation, it could make the problem worse if the user sees your reply and go like WHAT? *something that breaks the rule*

- Thread... The mod should leave a link to the moved topic.

A mod should remove the link though if the topic is being moved to a private area.

- Profile.... Not sure what that means, but I guess it's OK.

If you are talking about Profile Customizations, sorry but phpBB2 does not allow you to modify your profile, so that doesn't actually make any sense here.

- Sign... Do not mention a rule more then once.

3.studIo had multiple places where signature is allowed, so had to mention it more than once. Sorry though

I think if these rules are going to be used, they need to be adapted a bit, some merged, and integrated into the existing rules, using a clear numbering.

Yes, rules should reflect how the forum should be like. If a forum doesn't have Private Message feature, why bother mentioning it?

I think Muzo's rules also should be used: http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17284

1. Not quite sure what that means.

It has something to do with Naming names.

4. Well sometimes I use to say something serious, but with a bit of humor. I think that's not really sarcastic, but when someone doesn't quite understand, I use to explain clear what I mean without the humor. I think if we keep it that way it should be fine.

Also doesn't make much sense to me. Just explain/remove it if a user finds it offending.

5. OK!
5. The posting style rule.
6. OK
7. OK
8. OK
9. Well, maybe some reasonable talking or critical questions without being angry may be fine. If you start getting angry; ignore them.
10. OK

BTW, Muzozavr, several people have suggested you for moderator. Several more, including Patrick, have agreed with that. I saw no one who disagreed, (well, maybe one person who only came here to complain a bit.)

Lol, it's not exactly a complain, at least I didn't intend to do so.

Also, one point I have to emphaize: A mod is a human, NOT a bot.

^_^ If you don't have the patience to read it, please don't comment at all, instead of saying "too long to read".

We do have a phrase tl;dr, useful for a short summerization (sp) or saying that the user is posing a lot of unnecessary thing to wrap the point, asking him/her to bring the point out. It could be rude at times, so use it wisely.

[Marinus]

Well, that's very fast Tyteen, it had taken me hours to write all that. Don't worry though, you split the quote in separate parts to make things clear; you may stay alive.

It is always suggested that a moderator should talk to another moderator ..... let another judge handle the case. Same for forum.

OK, which means we need much more judges / moderators. Since there are not so many members active on this forum, it may be hard to find them. Doing it the way I suggested means that, in a manner of speaking, we're all judges. (Well, with an age-limit of course)

.. but the examples has to be cleaned up to be kids friendly (e.g:
3PSF rules wrote: .....

OK, well let's make it PG13 or such.

Moderator logs (and user complains via PM/email) could be handy.

See above: Still there are not enough moderators.

I am sure Qloof isn't crazy,

I guess you're right.

Moderator and Administrator's decision are final. If a user thinks the decision is wrong, they can reflect it to the staff by PMs (punishment, private matter) or by opening a topic about it (general, public matter).

Yes, you said that before, but I still don't quite agree.

Flashy/Moving pictures should not be banned just because of one person complaining about it.

I got the idea Patrick agreed with me.

For "evil", this is covered by the PG rule

Still I didn't see a clear list of things which are PG rated, and which not.

About internet safety, I doubt if it's that bad on this forum. Maybe at some obscure other forums.

....to avoid kids actually go and hijack someone's home and use a knife to kill the owner

I find that hard to believe.

Basically if most of the users and most of the mods/admins understand then it should be no problem.

im prety sour det you undestand wot i say but i think you may find it somwot annoyng dontyou see also muz rule neva rite like dis
Actually that one should also belong to the "posts should be readable rule" just like the one about the quote's, as you said.

(About naming) It can lead to trolling and flaming. If a user offended you in the forum you should take it to the mods/admins

Of course it can. But if we keep the other rules of Muzo, that's not a very big chance. It also depends on if we can have a reasonable talking. If not, we should keep the "ignore" rule. Same about so called "back seat moderating"

4. Well sometimes I use to say something serious, but with a bit of humor. I think that's not really sarcastic, but when someone doesn't quite understand, I use to explain clear what I mean without the humor. I think if we keep it that way it should be fine.

Also doesn't make much sense to me. Just explain/remove it if a user finds it offending.

What doesn't make sense to you? If I use some humor, and someone asks what I mean, I use to explain like I said.

5. OK!
5. The posting style rule.

Yes. I think we also should include this: http://gamedesign.wikicomplete.info/lis ... nd-phrases

Lol, it's not exactly a complain, at least I didn't intend to do so.

Actually I was not talking about you there. In Dutch we have an expression: "Whoever fits the shoe, put it on" which means such as: If you think something said in general, is meant to be said to you, then act as if it is. I don't think you were complaining, and also I didn't think you disagree having Muzo as moderator.

Also, one point I have to emphaize: A mod is a human, NOT a bot.

I didn't know that word, but I found: "emphasize". Indeed, that's right. But if a bot could do that (what I said about Star Trek's Data) it would be better, because a bot would be 100% objective (Lady Justice with the blindfold)

We do have a phrase tl;dr, useful for a short summerization (sp) or saying that the user is posing a lot of unnecessary thing to wrap the point, asking him/her to bring the point out. It could be rude at times, so use it wisely.

I'm not quite sure what you exactly mean. I don't know tl;dr, and I couldn't find the "summer" word, but I found "Summary" which means to make a long story short. Well, in my opinion I didn't use unnecessary things to wrap the point.

Anyhow, Tyteen, I think we both said lots of things based on personal opinion. In the end Patrick should make the decision.

[~xpr'd~]

I'd be willing to be a mod.
Actually, I'd love to be one.
I bet someone who's reading this just thinks "oh, he justs wants to use it for his own self and to have power and he'll overuse it" etc. I'm personally not one of those people who do that. I'm actually getting fed up at people who keep spamming and breaking rules, and I have broken some before, but the forum really isn't in a good shape. I'd love to help.

[/basically reiteration of topic]

[tyteen4a03]

Well, that's very fast Tyteen, it had taken me hours to write all that. Don't worry though, you split the quote in separate parts to make things clear; you may stay alive.

CAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEE

.. but the examples has to be cleaned up to be kids friendly (e.g:
3PSF rules wrote: .....

OK, well let's make it PG13 or such.

The forum has to be PG/G because Wonderland is a family game.

About internet safety, I doubt if it's that bad on this forum. Maybe at some obscure other forums.

See above for reply.

....to avoid kids actually go and hijack someone's home and use a knife to kill the owner

I find that hard to believe.

Of course that example is too extreme, but the point is kids may become bad without parental guidance.

What doesn't make sense to you? If I use some humor, and someone asks what I mean, I use to explain like I said.

I mean the rule.

Also, one point I have to emphaize: A mod is a human, NOT a bot.

I didn't know that word, but I found: "emphasize". Indeed, that's right. But if a bot could do that (what I said about Star Trek's Data) it would be better, because a bot would be 100% objective (Lady Justice with the blindfold)

The point is, a bot may not understand the situation and just strictly follow the rules everytime, which DOES make users complain. Like, if there is a rule you cannot double post, or you get ban. (of course not in RL situations). If a user accidentally double-posted by clicking the Post button twice, then a bot sees it, the bot gives that poor user a ban. Or some phrases has double meanings, but bot just ignores them because they don't see the meaning behind.

tl;dr: Yes, moderators have to be fair, but they should never be robotic and only does a search-and-delete and go have a cup of oil. Most of time judgements are based on facts and common sense. Even the blindfolded girl (gasp can't remember her name) needs common sense to judge.

(also, I just showed one way to use tl;dr XD)
(and yes, summarize, sorry)

Anyhow, Tyteen, I think we both said lots of things based on personal opinion. In the end Patrick should make the decision.

Opinions from different sides are always good for desicions.

Also there is a difference on a friendly reminder and backseat modding:
-The whole post is only about what rule you broke
-Reference to punishment decided by you (You should not spam. As a result I am going to tell the mods to ban you)

ALSO: There is a rough definitation of PG - anything that should not be in a Disney cartoon. Very rough though.

Should be good for now

[billy bob]

- Bump... Do not Bump, unless you have really something to say what you forgot to say earlier.

Could someone explain what is bad about bumping? Surely it's worse to create a topic about something that's already had a topic about it.

[Marinus]

Hi BB. This is what I meant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_(Internet) (the link didn't work well with me, so please choose: Bump (Internet)

To bump a thread on an Internet forum is to post a reply to it purely in order to raise the thread's profile. This will typically return it to the top of the list of active threads. It has been suggested that "bump" is an acronym of "bring up my post",[1] however this is almost certainly a backronym and the usage is entirely consistent with the verb "bump" which means "To knock to a new position"

To bring your own topic back up to top, with the intention to pull the other people's attention.

Surely it's worse to create a topic about something that's already had a topic about it.

If you're talking about the "Tin Wonderlander" stuff; according to Wikipedia, that was not bumping, because I didn't Bring Up My Post.

[billy bob]

To bump a thread on an Internet forum is to post a reply to it purely in order to raise the thread's profile. This will typically return it to the top of the list of active threads. It has been suggested that "bump" is an acronym of "bring up my post",[1] however this is almost certainly a backronym and the usage is entirely consistent with the verb "bump" which means "To knock to a new position"

To bring your own topic back up to top, with the intention to pull the other people's attention.

Surely it's worse to create a topic about something that's already had a topic about it.

If you're talking about the "Tin Wonderlander" stuff; according to Wikipedia, that was not bumping, because I didn't Bring Up My Post.

Well, it's OK to "bump" if you actually have something to say, instead of doing it for no reason, or to bring up your post.

[Marinus]

Well, then I think we agree.

[Muzozavr]

WUAW long discussion!

I like the idea of having moderators, possibly separate moderators for each forum. I'll say this immediately, though: if people want me to be a mod... then please not for the Off-Topic discussions. Maybe a mod helper or something, but not a mod for off-topic.

There are two reasons for this, the main one is that I'll keep missing the spammy topics, unless they're incredibly obvious. I simply learned how to read off-topic without really noticing them, since I *do* like the people in here and I didn't want to lose it. So picking the spammy ones can be very hard for me and I will never feel sure that I got it right.

The other reason is that I feel moderators of a section should be "clean" in at least that section... and together with Qloof (and Theo) I have been breaking one particular rule for quite some time. (Hello PG rule. Hello Higurashi. Hello nightmares for anyone who actually decides to google. Yeah, I really thought that not having links is enough. Trying to discuss things more seriously makes me realize it's not. Thank god/Hanyuu it's an isolated topic.) So yeah, in off-topic at least... I'm not clean, sorry. We should probably take the topic to a different forum where it would be more OK.

I really like the idea of splitting the off-topic into off-topic and silly stuff again, like it was back then. First of all, it DID reduce the amount of silly spam in off-topic even if it wasn't a perfect solution. Aside from reducing the amount of spam directly, it has one huge HUGE bonus for Patrick/moderators: they can deal with silly "spammy" topics without deleting them outright. That INSTANTLY and HUGELY reduces the amount of potential "collateral damage" as Patrick calls it. Original topic is replaced with "moved to here" and... that's it. People will follow and find the original topic where it was.

***

P.S. Marinus, you're not doing the "you must die" joke correctly. It has to include the sentence structure as well. It would be "YOU DARE TO BRING QUOTES OF MY HUGE POST INTO THIS THREAD? YOU MUST DIE!" Yeah, that would be the right one.

(I did not quote... so I am not a zombie. )

[VirtLands]

Wow, there's a lot to read here, ...
I'm going to have to download all this.

Also, thanks to Marinus for your input & ideas.

Apparently my idea number 2 fizzled,

So here's a possible Idea number 3::
What about collapsing posts? .

In order to reduce the visible clutter we could have
up to 50 (or more) posts on each page, rather than the apparent
limit of 14 or so.

Each reply (post) that is over 10 days old shall collapse into a
plus sign; to view an old post one simply
clicks on that plus sign and it temporarily expands during the
duration that the user is "logged in".

I searched for a picture that kind of shows what I mean
by collapsing,... Each plus sign could represent a post.
A sequence of 30 or so plus signs would indicate about
30 posts. These would collapse in time, and therefore,
save visual space, (though not byte space) .

[Qloof234]

@VirtLands; I think that'd be okay if not for two things; First off, it'd be rather confusing for new users, because... well, this is the internet, and second off, I'm not sure if it's possible with the forum's software.

[tyteen4a03]

Yes, it can be confusing to users.

Also, it would require additional codings.

[Marinus]

Maybe a mod helper or something,

Aha! You want to be a back seat moderator, just like me. As far as I can see you don't want to wear a (clean) police-uniform (just like me), but you don't want to give people a penalty either. (I thought that was just the fun )

But seriously, I respect your opinion / decision especially for the first reason you mentioned. About your second reason, I would suggest: Take a shower, and try to stay clean. Besides, who in the world is really clean; has never broken any rule?

As Tyteen said such as "The old rule only says: play nice.", and the rules haven't been changed yet. Well, about the posts I've read from you, you always play nice.

Anyhow, thanks for giving your opinion and of course; you should do what you think it's best.


Andy, I like your new idea! I think it is a bit the same as an email-conversation in Gmail, which contains lots of separate emails, which you can expand / collapse separately if you wish. So when I want to read the first post of a topic, the 5th one, and the 11th one, finding the 2-4 and 6-10th not interesting, I can collapse the not interesting posts. I think that's great, at least if it's possible to collapse / expand every post including the new ones, and also to collapse / expand them all together.

, it'd be rather confusing for new users, because... well, this is the internet

I'm pretty sure new users will be used to that system within 10 minutes. But if it's possible with the software, I doubt.

[tyteen4a03]

But if it's possible with the software, I doubt.

We can always try to make it, but I doubt it will be possible to save the collasped post data easily.

Also, it is 6PM in the afternoon and I am still not sure if the post above is good enough

[Qloof234]

@Marinus; Probably, but the problem would be people who don't bother trying to understand it or don't notice it more than anything else.

Thank god/Hanyuu it's an isolated topic

I lol'd so hard at this