By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
AngryLittleAlchemist on 30 December 2017
Carl2291 said:
This isn't an official mod question, but one of my own little questions for anyone interested.

What would the overall reaction be to the mod team removing problematic members of the community who don't actually "break the rules" with the posts they're making? We can all see and point out specific members (right or wrong) who continually cause problems in threads, get other members into trouble and remain unscathed thanks to the rule set. They're poisonous to any real discussion and I think the forum would be better off without them.

The best way to solve any problem is to remove the cause of that problem.

It's been something I've wanted the moderators to do for a long, long time.

I like the idea, even if it means I get permabanned. I think it's a great idea, mostly because a lot of users here contribute only negativity or bait-comments with the specific means to do so while dogging a ban through loop holes. Honestly, I think as it is, and this is just me personally, the banning system focuses too much on wording and not enough on intent. But that's just me. 

I do think people should get a chance to rehabilitate, or that permabans should take a long time to eventually get to. 

COKTOE said:

I can think of a couple people I'd like to nominate, one of which just lurched forth from the darkness a couple days ago after an extended absence.....Really though, I'm sorry to say I don't think it the best idea. 

You want me banned : O ?????

vivster said:
I think the more reasonable method here would be to target those specific individuals and actually start infracting them for rule breaks that are usually not enforced. You'd see them gone in no time. The most toxic people on here are complete morons and will not be able to adjust their style. A perma ban is only a matter of time then.

Yeah, an easier solution would probably just be targeting them ban wise. Why not just change the rules to acknowledge loopholes? 



Around the Network
Barkley on 30 December 2017

Moderating shouldn't be black and white, there are obvious users who skirt the boundary and are toxic without directly violating any specific rule.

An issue with this however would be punishments. A user the blatantly breaks the rules follows the 1-3-5 day etc progressive ban system. I don't see a short temp ban working with the reason "You're an asshole." Equally permanently banning the users, may be better for the site, but then brings up the issue of those skirting the rules being punished more harshly then those blatantly breaking them.

But there are obvious troll users on this site that continue to be members that really shouldn't when every thread they create is garbage aimed at one thing.

I'm all for moderators using their judgement a bit more, as a group not a single moderator, but a lot has to be ironed out.



COKTOE on 30 December 2017
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Carl2291 said:
This isn't an official mod question, but one of my own little questions for anyone interested.

What would the overall reaction be to the mod team removing problematic members of the community who don't actually "break the rules" with the posts they're making? We can all see and point out specific members (right or wrong) who continually cause problems in threads, get other members into trouble and remain unscathed thanks to the rule set. They're poisonous to any real discussion and I think the forum would be better off without them.

The best way to solve any problem is to remove the cause of that problem.

It's been something I've wanted the moderators to do for a long, long time.

I like the idea, even if it means I get permabanned. I think it's a great idea, mostly because a lot of users here contribute only negativity or bait-comments with the specific means to do so while dogging a ban through loop holes. Honestly, I think as it is, and this is just me personally, the banning system focuses too much on wording and not enough on intent. But that's just me. 

I do think people should get a chance to rehabilitate, or that permabans should take a long time to eventually get to. 

COKTOE said:

I can think of a couple people I'd like to nominate, one of which just lurched forth from the darkness a couple days ago after an extended absence.....Really though, I'm sorry to say I don't think it the best idea. 

You want me banned : O ?????

vivster said:
I think the more reasonable method here would be to target those specific individuals and actually start infracting them for rule breaks that are usually not enforced. You'd see them gone in no time. The most toxic people on here are complete morons and will not be able to adjust their style. A perma ban is only a matter of time then.

Yeah, an easier solution would probably just be targeting them ban wise. Why not just change the rules to acknowledge loopholes? 

You were never gone for more than a few days though. I HAVE reported you for your sig, which I feel promotes domestic abuse.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

AngryLittleAlchemist on 30 December 2017
COKTOE said:

You were never gone for more than a few days though. I HAVE reported you for your sig, which I feel promotes domestic abuse.

Oh? Which Sig was that?



COKTOE on 30 December 2017
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
COKTOE said:

You were never gone for more than a few days though. I HAVE reported you for your sig, which I feel promotes domestic abuse.

Oh? Which Sig was that?

Your current picture.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist on 30 December 2017
COKTOE said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Oh? Which Sig was that?

Your current picture.

I STAND BY IT!!!



Kerotan on 30 December 2017

Gaf had a similar policy where users who weren't exactly popular got the boot much easier then others and it resulted in the biggest circle jerk echo chamber in the world. It has since moved to resetera.

This reminds me of star wars where the dark side want strict control over the Republic. I'm firmly in the rebel camp on this one. You can call me Master Yoda.



Kerotan on 30 December 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
Kerotan said:
Gaf had a similar policy where users who weren't exactly popular got the boot much easier then others and it resulted in the biggest circle jerk echo chamber in the world. It has since moved to resetera.

This reminds me of star wars where the dark side want strict control over the Republic. I'm firmly in the rebel camp on this one. You can call me Master Yoda.

You may be green and small but you're no Yoda!

I know. He's dead, I'm not. But at least yoda was allowed die of natural causes and not voted out of the galaxy by the Republic. 



vivster on 30 December 2017
mZuzek said:
vivster said:

I do enjoy being a friendly and constructive member of this great community :)

By the way, I just wanna say I used to think of you as a toxic member and everything you said annoyed the crap out of me. I'm not sure if I just got used to it, but nah, I think you've really come around.

I can appear toxic if you only see a certain fraction of my posts, or if you bind your self worth to a console. 

I've been called a Playstation hater despite having had a lot of fun with the console since the PS1, it's where my love for Final Fantasy comes from. I've been called an Xbox hater despite doing my best to defend the platform when it's doing something right. Other than that I'm completely indifferent to it. I've been called a Nintendo hater despite Nintendo being my entry into gaming. Some of my favorite games of all times are Nintendo games and I still buy all of their consoles and games. I am the most anti Steam person on this forum despite PC and Steam being my main platform.

I speak only for myself and call out everyone who's doing shitty stuff, but most people just see what they want to see so that they don't have to think about their own biases. I don't really think I've changed in the past years.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Aeolus451 on 30 December 2017
RolStoppable said:
Carl2291 said:
This isn't an official mod question, but one of my own little questions for anyone interested.

What would the overall reaction be to the mod team removing problematic members of the community who don't actually "break the rules" with the posts they're making? We can all see and point out specific members (right or wrong) who continually cause problems in threads, get other members into trouble and remain unscathed thanks to the rule set. They're poisonous to any real discussion and I think the forum would be better off without them.

The best way to solve any problem is to remove the cause of that problem.

It's been something I've wanted the moderators to do for a long, long time.

After reading through the responses to Carl's post, most people don't quite understand the proposal and it's easy to sense guilty conscience in some cases. The resulting fear is grounded in the lack of understanding of Carl's post.

This is about people who repeatedly barge into threads and post highly provocative statements and/or indefensible arguments which in turn derails threads and makes them first and foremost about the troublemaker. Nothing of value comes out of such discussions and we are talking about people where it's quite easy to reach community-wide agreement that the person in question always happens to be at the center of conflict because of their abysmal post quality.

Measures against such people aren't going to result in mass bannings. There's also this thread right here where anything can be challenged, so a safety blanket is in place.

I do have to criticize Carl for a fundamental error in this discussion. By prohibiting names to be named, there is way too much uncertainty about the subject and people are bound to talk past each other, because the problem to be discussed is largely undefined. If regular users aren't allowed to name names, fine, but in that case the mod himself needs to put at least one name forward to give a proper example of what exactly he is talking about, so that everyone is on the same page when it comes to this subject.

I think that people understand him just fine because they're not idiots. They can see the flaws in that proposal and where it could make things worse. They just have different point of view from you.

With a different set of mods, they're would be a different set of "troublemakers" defined only by their opinion and that would give the mods the grounds to just ban them whenever. It can be abused too easily. Rules are supposed to be a standard or a code of behavior that's publicly displayed for everyone to see and go by. If you start having a bunch of unwritten rules and people are banned over it, it's gonna turn into a shitty forum fast. 

It doesn't matter what the names are.