Deleting threads, stupid or not

[drg]

A real man wouldn't be a hypocrite. That's sad. I find it very encouraging how many people will stand up to something they see as wrong even when they are not involved or dont have a stake in it.

Are you calling me a hypocrite? How so? I have never denied any claim on my character, but then again it's not the subject here.

People are passionate about this stuff and are not willing to sit back and let a handful of malcontents ruin what they care for.

Irony ...

[ThePixelGuru]

You know what's neat about that paragraph? You start off thinking you opinion matters, and by the end, you realize otherwise. Oh and AO hasn't changed, it's been that way from at least 1/20/05.

Users do make a forum, as they provide the content, and without content a forum is nothing.
Moderators are occupied making the board inviting for other users to provide content.
Don't make the mistake that this means your opinion on they should run the board matters. It makes you a disruptive force.

You are the nail standing out, and not the squeaky wheel.

No, I still think my opinion matters, just as I think yours and Lohman's matter. That's why I'm bothering to address these opinions, and clearly you think my opinion matters because you took the time to respond. Funny how you say "Moderators are occupied making the board inviting for other users to provide content." That's exactly how I would define a moderator's responsibility, and that's exactly what I feel they are not doing. Random bans outside the bounds of the rules does not foster and inviting environment, and thus the moderators are not living up to their responsibilities. Also, consider where we would be without disruptive force. Yeah, it's a good thing no one's ever stood up to anyone before, clearly the right thing to do is always to cave.

You don't call a spade a spade. I have heard a lot of sweeping generalizations that cannot be quite backed up with specific examples so far.

Funny, you keep saying that and I keep backing up my examples. Of course, you never specify which "sweeping generalizations" you mean, or provide any reason why they're unfalsifiable or any counter examples which might falsify those claims. I suggest you do so, because until you provide any of this you're just the kid sitting in the corner sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming to drown out the arguments you think might bring yours crashing down.

Which is a violation of the rules and has been very clearly stated in the past (albeit not in the rules section). And since one argument here is "it applies just as much on the web as in real life" I'll take it and run with it. You are responsible to know the rules / laws of life and follow them, even if they are not all neatly set out in one easy form. The only portions of your complaint that holds any sense of validity is that they are not all in the same place and that they are not always enforced fairly. Since there is a judgement call in any enforcement not everyone will always agree they are enforced fairly, so I'm going to go with questioning if that is that great of a valid point. Its a ban, it didn't cause you harm, and now you know. Get over it.

You keep claiming that this rule has been "clearly stated," but it hasn't. In fact, if you read the linked thread, the only thing any moderator says in the thread is when the AO Moderation Team closes the thread, saying, "Cussing or bypassing the filter results in a ban. It is subject to our interpretation." Posting asterisks is not cussing, nor is it bypassing the filter. Hell, it's never even explicitly (though it is implicitly) stated that activating the filter is a ban-able offense. It's not stated in the official rules, it's not stated in that other thread. So until you can quote and link to where it is explicitly stated, stop saying that it is explicitly stated. Even if it was explicitly stated in this other thread (which it isn't, I've never encountered a forum that expected you, unprompted, to search the entire forum for additional rules not contained in the rules thread. Please tell me how we were supposed to know to do that. And again, this isn't about specifically my ban, and it's not about any one ban. It's about the uneven application of ban policies and the application of ban polices never discussed in the forum rules.

All we're asking is that the mods update the rules thread to reflect the rules which they will actually enforce, and then enforce those rules. Is that really so much to ask?

[DevilMan]

All in favor????

AYE!!!

DM

[drg]

All in favor????

AYE!!!

DM

This isn't a democracy. Not even a casual one.

[DevilMan]

This isn't a democracy. Not even a casual one.

bwahahhahahaaa..... So that's an AYE for you as well !!!!

WOOT!!!! There's 2!!!!

:P

DM

[MANN]

Are we seriously still arguing about this?

[bofh]

No, I still think my opinion matters, just as I think yours and Lohman's matter.

Good for you. But I got news for you, Lohman's and My opinions on how this board should be moderated are worth as close to zero as my calculator goes to the mods here. (except, perhaps Army, because he's like that.)

All we're asking is that the mods update the rules thread to reflect the rules which they will actually enforce, and then enforce those rules. Is that really so much to ask?

Of the times before, this has come up, and not been answered... It maybe too much to ask. FC. FC man.



Oh, and

Wasnt it stated 'somewhere' that posting of owls and lolcats was prohibited on AO?

Perhaps... but isn't this thread about how the mods don't do their job?

[DevilMan]

bwahahhahahaaa.... nope....

weeez bee havin skushuns!!!!!



Ya see the best part of beatin a dead horse is getting to laugh at fool that hits it when it's gotten ripe and pops!!!!!



DM

[ThePixelGuru]

Good for you. But I got news for you, Lohman's and My opinions on how this board should be moderated are worth as close to zero as my calculator goes to the mods here. (except, perhaps Army, because he's like that.)

I've got news for you. A board that doesn't listen to the desires of its members is not going to do well. We've already established that members make the forum as no forum exists without content. Not listening to those members is a pretty bad choice. Look at Facebook - they do something their members don't like, and their members complain. Does Facebook have to listen? No, but they do, because without members their site is worthless. Any site operator or forum moderator worth a damn recognizes that pissing off your members is detrimental to the site, and won't do it without a very good reason. This happens all over the internet, and I'm surprised that you all seem to think AO is an exception.

Of the times before, this has come up, and not been answered... It maybe too much to ask. FC. FC man.

Yes, because if you try and fail, the lesson is to never try again. That's a great philosophy for life, you'll get real far with that. Explain to me how this is not a reasonable request, and what AO gains from ignoring its members and having ill- or undefined rules that have no bearing on what the moderators actually do.

[Lohman446]

AO gains from ignoring what has changed from a request to a demand from a vocal minority. AO gains by not allowing a vocal minority to somehow gain status by being more vocal and more disruptive to get their way. AO gains by banning those who would seek to be disruptive across multiple threads because the moderators did something they did not agree with. AO gains by not allowing a vocal minority to beleive that their opinions are worth far more than they are. Once you give some vocal minority something, because they have been vocal and not doing so may be disruptive, you have opened the door and others will learn from it.

I'm not against an update to the rules and clarification for people who can't seem to understand what is disruptive posting, or baiting moderators. At one point we did not need them, but apparently the time when people were respectful to the forum, the rights of its ownership and administration, has passed.

[bofh]

I've got news for you. A board that doesn't listen to the desires of its members is not going to do well. We've already established that members make the forum as no forum exists without content. Not listening to those members is a pretty bad choice. Look at Facebook - they do something their members don't like, and their members complain. Does Facebook have to listen? No, but they do, because without members their site is worthless. ny site operator or forum moderator worth a damn recognizes that pissing off your members is detrimental to the site, and won't do it without a very good reason. This happens all over the internet, and I'm surprised that you all seem to think AO is an exception.

Members, members, members...

You speak of two things, almost interchangeably, your opinion (as the thepixelguru), and the wider plural opinion (when you speak of "Members") Those are not the same thing.

There's maybe 5 of you that got your panties in a wad over this. If you actually want you voice to have weight, then you need to pose a threat to what the moderators care about. ie. content. Gather up more people that will pledge to not provide content unless your changes are met.

Make a list,
Make a manifesto.
Organise.
Rally.
Until you do that, you just a minor voice crying about injustice.

Yes, because if you try and fail, the lesson is to never try again. That's a great philosophy for life, you'll get real far with that.

One of the working definitions of insanity I use, is trying the same thing, and expecting different results. So this time around, you're going to have to better the last attempts.

As for me, validating the request. I've always thought it was reasonable. Going on three years now.

[teufelhunden]

What exactly did facebook do that its users wanted? We've all been sick of 700 application invites per day but they aren't doing anything about that, there was a huge outcry about news/minifeeds but they still exist, you still can't make it so you have to approve any pictures you're tagged in, etc. etc. etc.

[ThePixelGuru]

AO gains from ignoring what has changed from a request to a demand from a vocal minority. AO gains by not allowing a vocal minority to somehow gain status by being more vocal and more disruptive to get their way. AO gains by banning those who would seek to be disruptive across multiple threads because the moderators did something they did not agree with. AO gains by not allowing a vocal minority to beleive that their opinions are worth far more than they are. Once you give some vocal minority something, because they have been vocal and not doing so may be disruptive, you have opened the door and others will learn from it.

I'm not against an update to the rules and clarification for people who can't seem to understand what is disruptive posting, or baiting moderators. At one point we did not need them, but apparently the time when people were respectful to the forum, the rights of its ownership and administration, has passed.

Oh, I see. A minority has never been right, it's only large groups of people who can have good ideas. I like how you can take an argument that many agree is right on principle and justify ignoring it on principle. Somehow the moderators are right for being butthurt and digging in their heels because we got a little peeved when they brushed us aside and ignored a perfectly reasonable request.

Make a list,
Make a manifesto.
Organise.
Rally.
Until you do that, you just a minor voice crying about injustice.

Fair enough. I don't think we're a minority, and if we are I doubt it's by much. Point taken, though, I don't have concrete numbers to back me here.

What exactly did facebook do that its users wanted? We've all been sick of 700 application invites per day but they aren't doing anything about that, there was a huge outcry about news/minifeeds but they still exist, you still can't make it so you have to approve any pictures you're tagged in, etc. etc. etc.

Privacy stuff, mostly. They introduce features like the Mini-Feed, then users hate it so they add an opt-out. They have a new feature (called Beacon, I think) that tells people when you buy something from Amazon, a movie ticket, or rent something from Blockbuster. It was an opt-out system where the only way to stop it was to click a little pop-up within 20 seconds of making the purchase. Users complained, Facebook added an opt-out that you could check in your privacy settings to disable Beacon. They didn't have to do any of that, but it's in their best interest to keep users happy so they don't deactivate their accounts and leave. That sort of behavior is fairly standard of any site that listens to its userbase and understands that people will leave if they don't get the respect they feel they deserve.

[Lohman446]

Oh, I see. A minority has never been right, it's only large groups of people who can have good ideas. I like how you can take an argument that many agree is right on principle and justify ignoring it on principle. Somehow the moderators are right for being butthurt and digging in their heels because we got a little peeved when they brushed us aside and ignored a perfectly reasonable request..

No, the minority here whining about "rights and justice" are wrong. I'd actually agree the rules could be written better. I disagree with the concept that members should be immune to them because they are not.

There is a big difference between "Oops, I did not know that was the rule, perhaps for future members it should be clarified better in the rule sections" and "you have no right to enforce it because I'm important to you and I didn't know, this is an injustice.... blah blah... Berlin wall... blah blah.... Nazis.....". Not you, but DM compared this to worldwide socio-political injustices.

[DevilMan]

Unjust behavior, policies and treatment are UNJUST no matter how large or small the affected group is.

1 person can be treated unfairly, and it's UNFAIR no matter how you cut it.

You seem to be the only one here Loh that thinks that what you have to say AGAINST us matters to us, when you can't sit there and tell us valid reasons as to why it's RIGHT.

Instead of trying to PROVE us wrong, why don't you try and PROVE your point RIGHT????

We already know that you can't prove us wrong. Being treated unfairly, is in fact UNFAIR.

Care to argue that point?

DM