*DAMN R6 Forum

I had an idea:

What if you allowed the person that created a particular topic to be able to moderate it (limited moderation).

For example, you have a decent thread going, and someone comes in and starts bending it towards a flame war (but not noticibly enough for it to be deleted). Eventually the war will start, and the thread will be lost.

So, maybe you could allow the original creator of the thread to be able to have limited moderator controls over it.

 Snipe,

Wouldn't work. Imagin someone like Snipey in charge of a thread. Everything would be deleted or edited. Moderators are chosen as people who have the ability to control what they do. Not everyone has that ability, it simply wouldn't work.  

Plus the fact that I don't think Yabb has the power to do that.

Well, thread creators used to have the power to lock/unlock threads.

I used that once on a thread in GG...of course the moderators ended up unlocking it everytime so all the bloody good that did me.

Actually, I think it's a great idea.

Snipey couldn't do any more damage moderating a thread than he could simply by posting in it.  If a thread gets out of control, no matter what the cause, another moderator can always delete it.

Furthermore, any improper edits could result in a ban from the forum, and the last person to edit every post still shows up at the bottom.

If YABB has the feature, we should implement it.

I agree that there isn't much harm in it.  Although I'd rather they just get the ability to delete posts rather than edit.

And it only works if the moderators give some control.  If the person who starts the thread really wants it locked, they shouldn't override that.  That would prevent the problem that happened in my case.  Moderators should only interfere if there is a significant issue.

Acceptable, but if the thread "owner" is locking, they need to say why in a post rather then just doing it.  The only problem I have with the idea is that sometimes the person who starts a thread doesn't really have control over it - the discussion may be completely off-topic from the beginning, or the thread may simply take on a life of its own when they're not paying attention.

I think there should be a feature that allows users to indicate whether a thread should be "private" at the time when they first post it - if it is, they would have moderation abilities over it and could keep it on topic - useful anytime you want to have a serious discussion over something (and obviously moderators would still have a veto) - or keep the thread in the normal bounds of debate.

 Think of what would happen if you had someone like Snipey in charge of a thread? You post something that he doesn't completly agree with, he deletes it. There are lots of people here who would just go delete crazy. It would prevent people from disagreeing with them.

If it is Snipey's thread, let him delete posts of people that disagree with him (especially since they likely wouldn't be calm).  That is the whole point of having the thread initiator be able to moderate, they can run it how they like.  If you don't like how it is run, then you don't have to post in it.

For example, if Bucc came in acting like...well as he has a habit of doing and was calling me cocksucker or Loud "Loudass"...I might feel the desire to delete the post.  Now under the current rules, the moderator probably wouldn't, but that doesn't mean I would be wrong to do so in my thread.  The lowest common denominator would still be the moderators rules, but you could add a new level depending on preference.

 Yes, and how might Bucc react something that he disagrees with?

All I'll say ( until you post again): Terrible idea. One of the worst I've heard in a long time.  

I just skimmed over this and i think it's hilarious how Snipey's name is in all of these posts. In my strange, stoner mind i formulate a scene located in a large, old fashioned court room, filled with mumbling sophisticated english type people with wigs on. the judge bangs his hammer on the table, calls for order and says
"So it is agreed. The Snipey will have no such moderating functions within our forum"

first of, typhy, snipey is better than you so fu

and i think its an ok, but there cant be pictures, cause typhy would upload one with him with his cat, and i dont wanna see that

-SK

(mini moderater privs would be good)

 SK, why don't you remove your sorry ass excuse for a computer from your ass, and learn to make a half way decent post, you uneducated dumbfuck.

In your last meeting with your psyciatrist, did he ask why your ass was the size of an average computer desk? If so, how odd did it feel to explain to him that you simply can't go anywhere without it, and since your ass is already often opened to outside contact, it seemed a logical storage area? When he asked why you had a person with a dick the size of a paper clip, following you, trying to force their aparent paper clip into your mouth, how did he react when you told him it was Snipey?

 

See, if this were my thread, typhy's last post would certainly be considered for deletion.

 And there, sir, is a perfect example of why this wouldn't work. The only reason that I posted that was to try and get a reply from Bondo or Loudnotes.

Obviously my post should be deleted, so should SK's. However, how would you handle it, Bondo? Would you give me an explaination of why my post was deleted? You can be sure that if mine were deleted, but SK's remained, I'd start a big argument about it. Our moderators know how to handle themselves ( most of them ), other people don't. Look at when SilentKiller was a moderator, and he modded my post - that's why Mauti removed him.  Take a look at how many imature assholes we have around here - promote them all to moderators with no restrictions, and look at the mess that you'll have.

(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/icon_lol.gif)

Typhy, frankly I couldn't understand SK's post well enough to know if it was a flame or not.

Yours was clearly that though.  And if it got deleted you should know damn well why and not do that again...if you do have a fit then I could keep deleting your posts until you settle down.  SK's post was not nearly as bad as yours, and really wasn't something that would need deleting.

But once again, you talk about how these people can't handle moderating...once again I say, if you don't like their moderation, don't read or post in threads they start, it is that simple.

 Bondo's a hard person to argue with on this, because he has lots of forum experience and would make a good moderator, so I can't use his comments about what should or shouldn't be deleted against him, because he's usually right.

Moderators are selected partially by their ability to control themselves, and know what to delete, and what to leave - when to lock, and what to edit out.

Here's a little example of what would happen if we had certian people around here as moderators:

Bob's post: Steve,

I disagree. While yes, third person is a feature in the game of Rogue Spear, so are autoaim and show enimeys. In my opinion, Third Person is much like those two - a cheap option that is able to change the gameplay in a negative way. If you're going to post, and start threads about things like this, please be willing to take other people's opinions into account, and not just respond with "fuck you, you noob".

Bob's post after Steve is finished with it:

I disagree, then again, I'm a dumbfuck, so what else is new? Third Person is what all the good players use, and it's simply impossible for me to compete with them in the first place, my being a newbie and all. It makes good players better, and that's just not fair to assholes like myself who are trying to learn this game. Steve, the only reason that you want third person is so that you can own me even more than you already do.

Conclusion: I'm just a dumbass who can't accept that there are better players out there, so I try to make it so that people can't use the features that make them good, so that they're all newbies like me.

Well, Bondo? What's stopping someone from doing things like that? The General Gossip forum is somewhere for us all to share our opinions of things, and abuse of moderational powers would make it near impossible to do such.



Bronto,

That post was an attempt to get Bondo and/or Loudnotes to respond in a given way, to help me prove a point.  

I said in an early post that we shouldn't allow the micromoderator edit posts, merely delete.  So simply that shouldn't be a concern because we shouldn't let them edit.

 Ok, so the same post is deleted. Same problem.  

How about we just remove the delete feature and allow editing!  Problem solved.

Now, I know you're all shaking your heads and thinking I'm going somewhat batty, but this really would work.  See, one of the issues of deleting a post is that there's no longer any record of its existence. . .and it makes moderating come into question sometimes.  However, any time anyone edits one of their posts or someone elses, or even views it and hits "save". . .it shows up as "last edit by ____ on ____".

Thus, we'd know who had messed with a post - and if one were called into question, it'd be no real problem sorting out what happened.  Furthermore, if a thread owner wanted to delete a post, they could just remove the content and leave a message in its place.

Also, I still think it should be a limited power.  Perhaps board moderators would have an on/off button for each thread - if the thread grew completely off it's original topic - the moderators could take away the thread owner's control.

But ultimately, I think this is a good idea - that the thread owner should have at least some ability to help control the direction of the debate. . .especially when the thread is trying to be productive - ask a question, for example.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter ;)

I think Loud just got the system figured out ;)

Now we'd just have to see if it is at all possible.

That post was an attempt to show Typhy that flaming the shit out of someone is an immature way to get the mods attention on the subject, seeing as you could have just explained it in a single sentence instead of two paragraphs of deliberate insults.

 Loudnotes, you've earned a lot of respect from me, not because I agree with what you say, but because of the way that you carry yourself. You're able to make resepctful posts no matter what they're in response to. Your post is one of the best written posts I've seen in 4 years of posting in web boards. However, you still can't convince me. ;)

The basic idea behind all this is sound. In theory, this would allow for more respectful debates, because whoever started the thread could more or less control how it went.

The problem with this, is that saddly, there are lots of people in this community, who simply can't handle themselves well enough to have moderational powers over any thread. I've shown multiple examples of what could, and will happen if this idea is applied.

It doesn't matter wether or not everyone knows that the post is changed. The point is, this system would allow people to control what others are able to say. While in some cases, it could help to avoid 'flame wars', more often, it would work the other way, and allow the topic starter to remove whatever he/she disagrees with.

If someone is controlling the debate how is it a debate anymore? I mean someone proves you wrong and you can delete their post? I think you should just leave it to the General Gossip they do their job well. If you want a thread controlled that is what the "notify" button is for.

The ability to moderate threads one starts would just lead to abuse, plain and simple.  It's already been abused by some moderators in the past, so thinking that the whole community could handle the responsibility is expecting too much.

Let the moderators do the moderating.  It's their job.  If they aren't doing it well, find others that will.  

But letting people have the power to edit or delete anything that they feel doesn't belong is just begging to be abused.  Just think, and after the first abuse, someone will just repost it in a thread of their own, that can't be touched by the other guy.  

Just think it through.

I do believe that the moderators do a good job of modding, however, the reason I made this suggestion in the first place was because I felt that good threads were often simply locked just because someone had gone off target. I guess to sum up it would be fair to allow the moderators to be more free to delete posts which did not have any relevance to the thread. It is upsetting to see posts that have a good intent locked because some retard decided to screw around with everything.

---0500 Frankfurt, Germany, about to get on my flight.

Home in 12 hours, Snipey.

no one cares about sniper code, its over used and over abused. for example _______ has been abused on _________ til his/her anal cavity bled.