| Jay520 said: I'm not sure what people have against elimination/list/game/user above you/spam threads. EDIT: I could probably elaborate more on this at a later date. Some of my points don't appear to be fully explained. |
I don't understand this sentiment, it doesn't make sense. Spurge has mostly been posting on the walls of people he knows and makes friends with, what issue is that to us? If we don't want him on our walls or in our convos, we say it and badang that's it, he's gone.
I think Spurge has demonstrated a GREAT desire for initiative and community building, and really it's the failure to notice that is what is plaguing our community. We are all too often seeing the negatives and fail to see the positives in each other.
Look, today I noticed some of the posters I've been spurring to get more involved make some quality posts and showing interest. I notice it because I have to, otherwise all I am is a big whiner, which I'm not. I have a vision for this place that makes sense to me and I'm sharing it with you. And that vision doesn't mean stopping spurge from posting where he wants to on peeps walls, unless they tell him explicitely to stop. If one doesn't want him in his feeds one can easily unfriend him, plain and simple. A wall is a personal/social area, it's not meant to be controlled by people, and when Seece was doing that, it was wrong imho.
Sure, some people are more outspoken than others, I know when I have a strong opinion on something I tend to speak my mind. So why is it that those who are more reserved feel overwhelmed, what would cause that? Is it really up to them to say "oh, I don't want to hear this or that person so it is spam"? Obviously peer pressure does its work, like it did to me here in general, especially after my mafia breakdown. But that has nothing to do with moderating, it has to do with influence.
To those here who advocate for tighter rules on low-quality posting, continue to fight the good fight for quality posting, but using rules to control the way people are is not the way to go. Influence and peer pressure are the way to go, for sure, it works. Leading by example and being the big brother works. But asking mods to ban this or that person because they talk too much is borderline offensive and overly controlling. That's one thing I didn't like about Seece, he wasn't all sunshine and rainbows either.
Ultimately the question is, where do you draw the line, since Vgchartz also has the desire to be a site of premium, user-generated discussion. It's natural, since it is the most factual, business-logic driven community the gaming industry has online. We talk numbers, we talk business, we talk stocks and financials, it's only natural that the team wants us to shine brighter than the other communities. But it would be a tragedy if that had to be done at the expense of the freedom of expression of certain posters, who begin to feel no longer free to speak their minds and be outspoken when needed (within the realm of civility still). Should one really be banned for not shining bright enough, especially after showing a deep commitment to the community? That would make me really sad. However if a person is being insulting to other users or just conveying a negative attitude towards other users (which I am also guilty of), then yes that is something the team should address because that harms the harmony of this place and that person needs a change of attitude.
Regarding going off topic. If the person isn't being disruptive, why does it matter so much? A bit of off-topic here or there is not really lethal either. You can skip posts you don't want to read, it's not that big a deal. I believe a certain percentage is tolerable, no need to be too fussy about that unless it goes out of hand.
As for word game type threads, they never were a problem before, why are they now, what changed? Are the users less funny now, does the game turn sour prematurely, does it shine a bad light on the site? What is the issue there I need to know otherwise I can't place a judgement.
