are you addict to vgchartz

[MontanaHatchet]

dunno001 said:

MontanaHatchet said:

I can tell you from my perspective (at least), that there are a lot less interesting members than there were in 2007 and 2008, and moderation needs to be less strict on regulars and more strict on the random, couple-posts, avatar-less trolls that spring up all the time. But that's just what I think

Though I have to be honest in response, I think setting a double-standard for moderation is a bad idea. A rule is there to be followed by everyone, not just those who've been here less than 2 months, less than 100 posts, or whatever. Doing such a thing might lead to some of the regulars thinking they're above the rules, which will be more akin to anarchy, and then the mods would serve no point at all. (And I've seen a forum that was essentially unmoderated- it was a disaster. It was much worse than 4chan, if that tells you anything.)

Conversely, the new members will see that people are doing X thing, and when they do X, they get warned or banned. Yet regular Z keeps doing that, without ever getting banned. This may lead new members to thinking that we're into favortism and unfair modding, or, worse still, we're all an inbred group, unwelcoming to new people, and cause them to leave, giving us an ice-cold reputation in the meanwhile. For growing the site, that would be a very bad idea.

Okay, seriously man, Anarchy?

I was a moderator once, and I know all about it. There are some regular members who can be a pain in the ass, and should be banned accordingly. But they shouldn't be banned for minor things while random new accounts sprout up all the time and start trouble (and of course, they're hard to notice since they have no avatar). If someone joins the site and is already trying to start up fights and troll, then they should be looked after heavily. And we need more fun threads and less bad jokes. Okay, my complaints are done then.