RATHER then discussing the rules of SG in SG! :D


Maybe, consulting your fellow mods, would be a nice idea too before you set down some rules and make a thread about it (espeically when sybil hasn't even seen what hes apprantly agreeing with.)

I was serious when I told you in #mods to delete that thread and WAIT xip, now its too late, its been there for an hour or so and already the shit is hitting the fan in there.

I don't like having to explain to regulars in a public forum WHY the mods aren't agreeing on whats being closed and why it is, they've already noticed that 2 mods and disagreeing with another over one thread. Lucky for us that regular is a nice non-trolling poster.

Did no one listen to what zok had to say either? Was that completely ignored too?


SO here it is, a thread for damage control (or at least I think this is how it'll turn out)

You seem to be the only one in opposition to any of this. Even the regulars seem to be content with the way things were written.
Not only that, but it seems to me that your definition of "shit hitting the fan" is just happening in a single thread.

If you actually take a think about how the rules were written, nothing has changed as to how we modded SG already. All of that stuff was there to begin with. We closed single word/phrase/sentence threads, we closed threads with no initial content, and we were telling the users to consider that it was our judgment over theirs.

Shit would have hit the fan in that first thread weither there were a post about the rules or not, because it would have been closed anyway.

That thread has changed nothing abut how SG is modded. We have not added any new restrictions to SG that we didn't already have before. I would have waited to consult sybil if there were any actual changes. If anything, its defining and putting into words what we've already been doing. If the mods unanimously decide on new regulations, then they can be discussed and put there.

I'm not trying to attack you, Kate. I respect you and your opinions, but you're taking this way out of proportion.

No, what gets me is that you just went ahead, without even consulting sybil, and if I hadn't come online at the time I did I wouldn't have been consulted either. The rules sound good as far as WE'RE concerned but when I said that my request was that they were run past at least zok first - which was ignored and you went right on ahead. Even he agreed that you should have waited.
The shit hasn't hit the fan yet, and I hope it doesn't but I've had to mod that forum through some of its most 'darkest' times and we don't need to go back there.
If the rules were already known then why did we need a thread for them eh?

I had nothing to consult you with. I mean, the rules that I just regurgitated there were something we already had. Nothing was changed.
The reason I decided that we needed a sticky was because its not us who needs to know what we already do, its the users that need it defined so they can get it in their heads. New users, old users, either way you look at it, the users need to understand what it is that we do, how we do it, and why we do it so they don't make a mistake.

If you take a look at IFIOTW, there are several rules that the moderators unanimously go by. The problem is, the users don't know exactly what it is we DO go by, and that is why the sticky is there.

If the sticky were not there, the place would have been run just as it had been.

I guess this is me expecting too much respect from other mods again.

Shame, I would have thought my opinion on that forum would have mattered considering that I've modded it longer then all of you - not to mention the fact that I consider you a friend.



12:48] <XiPPiLLi> Kate
[12:48] <XiPPiLLi> wonderful timing
[12:48] <kAtE-> ?
[12:48] <XiPPiLLi> Meta and I were discussing new enforcement in SG
[12:48] <XiPPiLLi> We've collectively made a set of rules

Now you're just redirecting the subject.

Fact of the matter is, nothing was changed. If I had said "Hey, I've got an idea for a way we can better regulate this forum", then yeah, you would be one to consult. But look, thats just not what happened. In fact, nothing happened.

Kate, I consider you a friend. I truly respect both your opinions and you as a person, but you're taking this way out of hand. I mean, really, NOTHING happened.

You were saying that fellow mods need to be consulted before we set down new rules, and thats just it. No new rules were set, so there was no need for anyone to be consulted.

Look, I really don't understand what you're upset about. If we had actually set some new rules, you would have been consulted and the whole matter would have been settled based not only upon your opinion, but the opinion of the collective mods of SG, just like you said. I agree with that.

As for the log, yes, we were discussing new SG enforcement. However, we didn't conclude to any new rules to put down, so we just went ahead with the old ones.

Better than a soap opera...

"...These rules are a cooperative decision by the moderation team. The rules can and will change at any time without prior notice. It is the right and privilege of the moderation team to enforce these regulations to the best of their judgment, both as a whole and individually."


O rly?

Please, at least say something constructive. I bought this issue to the right place, its not in public, what do you think this forum is for?

Kate, again, we never changed anything. Those are the regulations we've been working with since I can remember. The entire time you've been modding SG with us, you've never had a problem with it. I'm truly baffled as to why you're upset now that they've been put into words.

These are the old regulations we were running by. If you have an issue with any of the ways we've running things for such a long time now, why haven't you mentioned anything before now?

Really, theres no reason to be upset over something that hasn't changed unless you want to change it. If you do, then that'd be great, we'd love to hear about it, but theres no need to get upset over nothing.

You miss the point




AGAIN


I told you that the rules were ok by ME but since SG is such a problem area I said but PLEASE run it past zok first, and then I asked if Sybil had been talked to - when you said no, I said his opinion should be asked too.



lawl, and I'm not upset, this isn't the end of the world, I'm just slightly irritated.

Aah, well I thought you were upset. I apologise.

In any case, you can refer to this thread:
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1991116

I made this post:

Personally, the way I see it, the moderators were put into a forum because they were trusted in how it should be run.
Essentially, say all of us in IFIOTW unanimously decided that "Hey, we should enact this rule where if anyone posts threads that rally a group to spam another forum, it would constitute in a thread deletion and infraction, and reference Bill Kellar, Muslimspace, and the LOTR forum and all previous events where things did indeed go batshit loco as a result of letting that happen," then we would enact that rule unanimously.

Basically, its up to you to run the forum, because you were trusted with that responsibility. However, if the administration sees something they dont like, then thats their right to tell you to change it.

Basically, you've been given the privelage of making decisions to a reasonable extent. Of course, the spam, irrelevant threads, redirecting wrong forum posts, and things like that would be a given.

Zok, AM, Jeff, am I wrong in saying this?

To which Jeff had replied to my post, saying this:

Nope. Perfectly correct. In fact, I agree with everything posted in this thread so far.

In the view of the administration, we can safely say that if Zok, Acidmelt, or Jeff had a problem with anything posted, then there would be something said by him about it.

And I ask, what would I have asked Sybil? In all honesty and curiosity, I want to know what you believe I should have told him. That I was posting a thread about stuff we already know about?

The only thing that has made any kind of impact on anything was the fact that the regulations we were already going by had been put into words.

[17:51] <XiPPiLLi> All right
[17:51] <Metaphysicist> Wassup?
[17:51] <XiPPiLLi> lets talk about SG
[17:51] <XiPPiLLi> Lets lay down some laws
[17:51] <Metaphysicist> k
[17:51] <XiPPiLLi> I propose a rule that is....
[17:52] <Euda> SG Sux.
[17:52] <Euda> B)
[17:52] <XiPPiLLi> No threads that begin with less than two sentences.
[17:52] <Metaphysicist> Silence you
[17:52] <XiPPiLLi> Two valid, subject relevent sentences.
[17:52] <Euda> bullshit, tried it in printed matter
[17:52] <Metaphysicist> I'd like that
[17:52] <Euda> didn't work, too difficult - things can be summed up well in a sentence on a regular basis
[17:52] <Euda> you'll get filler
[17:53] <Metaphysicist> But when I tried to not allow threads that only had a subject and said Dicuss, people threw a fit
[17:53] <XiPPiLLi> They dont have to be grammatically correct.
[17:53] <XiPPiLLi> Yeah I know
[17:53] <XiPPiLLi> Now we lay it in front of them so they have no excuse to bitch
[17:53] <XiPPiLLi> Slap them in the face a bit
[17:53] <Metaphysicist> But I am all for trying it

I personally don't see the issue after looking over the thread. It's just rules that anyone who spends more than ten minutes reading SG would be familiar with. Most people don't even read stickies, so I doubt it will do either much good or harm.

I guess my wording with "propose a rule" was wrong, since what I had suggested was already in place in the first place.

Xip, you were being headstrong and wanted to do it. It wouldn't have much mattered what anybody said.

You had the concept of waiting pointed out to you by several people. You chose to ignore it and continue on with your decision.

That's fine, but don't play as if you didn't make that choice.

(MLoR is a SuperMod as well. Perhaps you should start including him when you refer to zok and acidmelt?)

It would not have hurt you or the thread to wait until discussing it with all involved.

It's just a sticky of things that pretty much every SG regular are already familiar with. There was nothing new or noteworthy there(at least not when I read through it).

I don't follow, nor do I give a shit about IRC, so I don't know what was said there, but I really fail to see the issue with the thread other than Kate feeling someone took authority to do something they didn't have authority to do. That's just childish IMO.

I don't think theres anything wrong with having a rules thread - I was the one that told you to have it open remember, because if it were closed then I know that we'd have a couple of threads a day about the rules. I would have liked to have discussed it more though, I didn't actually realise you were about to post it (probably why I got so WTF in IRC) - SG is a delicate situation.

But since I was being ignored in IRC (and so seems what zok said) I had to come to here. At least Sybil can see this now.

And there you have it.

Yes, I did have that concept of waiting pointed out to me. I had thought about it, but considering that nothing had changed, it really would not have made a difference.

And likewise, it would not have hurt me or the thread to not wait before posting it. It would have made no difference.

I don't think theres anything wrong with having a rules thread - I was the one that told you to have it open remember, because if it were closed then I know that we'd have a couple of threads a day about the rules. I would have liked to have discussed it more though, I didn't actually realise you were about to post it (probably why I got so WTF in IRC) - SG is a delicate situation.

But since I was being ignored in IRC (and so seems what zok said) I had to come to here. At least Sybil can see this now.

Kate, you say ignored referring to you saying to wait, yes? I read and thought about that, but again, considering that nothing had changed, it would not have made any real difference either way.

Its really not that big of a deal. If an actual new rule were brought up and planted there without consulting the other mods, then yeah I can see where that would be a problem and just downright disrespectful to the other moderators, but thats not the case.

Its not that you, Zok, or Sybil were ignored, its that given the fact that nothing had changed, it would have made no difference.

Well, essentially what happened in IRC was that Meta and I were discussing how to put into words the regulations of SG. We were also talking about putting together new rules, but we had come to no conclusions. We had no ideas for any new regulations for SG.

We came to agreements on it and I had decided to throw it onto a sticky on SG. That was done, and then you can collect the rest of the info from this thread.

Maybe the military will teach you how to be a team player.

hmmm.. :(

If your arguments end with that, then I take it its no longer an issue. I made a thread and didn't consult everyone about it, so I'm not a team player? I'm sure if I started consulting the mods about every thread I make, it would get quite irritating.

The thread made no difference to how things in SG were run, nor would it have been direly necessary to consult any of the moderation team about something that hadn't changed in the first place.

If any new rules were put in place, then I can see where communication would have been necessary, but there weren't any. Thats all there is to it.

No my care factor at the moment has hit an all time low of 0.

I think I'm sick and tired of being ignored. (and no its not just in this case).

Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?

Mods are not by nature gregarious, at least with other Mods, and they certainly don't have leaders. MrMojoRisin is the most highly-regarded of the leaders we don't have."

What i'm saying is that if you can't agree among yourselves then defer to whichever one of you is the 'senior' mod (ie who was there first).

Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?



What i'm saying is that if you can't agree among yourselves then defer to whichever one of you is the 'senior' mod (ie who was there first).


Of course you can.


Oh and

Irony.

Of course you can.


Oh and

Irony.

Thank you.

Why irony?

I don't think anyone would describe P8b, myself or LC as 'submissive' personalties but ,yes, on S&A we tend to defer to Mojo. As I also tend defer to LC on My God.

Not that I can remember ever having this level of discord.

Or did i totally misunderstand what you were saying? (very likely...my caffeine levels are still depleted).

Why irony?

She described herself as the senior mod in the forum in an earlier post, which is true; she is the senior moderator in the forum.

What Euda said, but SG is pretty different to S&A, it goes through a lot more mods, that's for sure.

She described herself as the senior mod in the forum in an earlier post, which is true; she is the senior moderator in the forum.

Thanks. I missed that (soberiety be damned!).

soberiety be damned!

That sort of thing always sneaks up on you when the brandy isn't watching.

*head explodes*

Sure it is different. For example, on SG you (the mods) daren't allow there to be even a whiff or the merest hint of disagreement among you to be public (thats advice not sarcasm or critic btw).

Sure it is different. For example, on SG you (the mods) daren't allow there to be even a whiff or the merest hint of disagreement among you to be public (thats advice not sarcasm or critic btw).

I'm glad you're saying that without being a jerk about it, its nice to see that someone notices it (from outside of modding SG). Disagreement in a forum like that is almost like a sign of weakness for the trolls - seriously I've seen some pretty small stuff in there get blasted into full on rages of spammyness over moderator decisions and disagreements.

By the way, just to put it out there - disagreement - I mean that in the way a person moderates, not on general/content things. (Jack should know, I disagree with him in almost every thread in S&A but the respect is still there, from both sides).

Xip, sometimes in the life of a forum it is necessary to post 'rules' threads when you haven't had chance to fully consult with all your co-mods. I've had to do it a couple of times.

If you do then you should really put in a disclaimer'.

By which I mean something like this: Cindy and Psycho: Any input, additions, subtractions are welcome(which is from Mojo's Rules).

Not to do so is discourteous, especially if you aren't the 'senior' mod.

The term senior mod makes me uncomfortable, because xip and meta espeically are both very long standing mods. I don't consider myself senior to them, and thats not what this thread is about (me telling xippi off for be a very bad boy and not listening to his senior!) Equals make me :)

Which is why I tend to put the 'senior' bit in speech marks. Of course we are all equal. But it helps if we all are prepared to defer to another. I'm damn sure LC doesn't feel 'senior' to me but if I defer to her then the forum benefits. She has the most experience of that particular forum. Yes I am an established mod of another forum but not on My God. Thats all 'senior' means.

uhm thinking about S&A a bit more...you know, i'm not actually sure that Mojo has been there longer than Pyscho8b. Oh well , it seems to work for us.

Am I a chickenshit for not saying anything before now?:D

Truthfully I didn't want to get caught up in all of this. I consider both Xip and Kate friends and I think they both make valid points [not to be confused with me thinking all their points are valid].

Once is was determined what should be said, I kinda tuned out in IRC. I did see Kate ask to wait until we heard from Sybil and as another Mod there I think Xip should have respected that.

But I also didn't think it would be such a big deal since they are already the rules we go by.

I mean, I made a rules for BLTC on my own, but I told the others to chime right in. Sybil made the one about emailing Mods by himself. I thought it would have been nice had he got the rest of our emails and put them in. But I just edited mine in.

As far as Zok - and MLOR for that matter - is concerned, I don't know what he said in regards to waiting to post [like I said, I had mostly tuned out by that point], but it was my feeling that since both Zok and MLOR was there while Xip and I were discussing what should be said - and that it should be posted, and since neither said anything - either way - about it [and both were making other comments so I know both saw what we had been saying], I took that silence as their implicit ok to go ahead and post it.

Am I a chickenshit for not saying anything before now?:D


LOL
Confucious he say "when giants argue then us older wiser men do well to hide under the bed" :P

Wow, I'm so glad my voice counts for so much Anyway, the rules are for so much. I would of liked to of been a bit more involved in this discussion before you made it public though...kindoff showing eachoter respect.

It feels very sad when people save the conversations they have with their friends incase they need to fight about something later on.




:(

I don't save anything. It just happenned to be open still. I've never seen the point of saving things. If you can't remember them, then they aren't worth remembering.

I've never seen the point of saving things. If you can't remember them, then they aren't worth remembering.

You've never had 40 mice babies running around, have you?:D
the Mike1, Mike2, Mike3, and Mandy14 thing only goes so far..





That wasnt an insult, btw. It just seems weird to me.

Perhaps this situation could be solved by email, the casual bystanders such as myself peering in chanting "Fight fight fight!" must be annoying..
Sorry.




*leaves thread*

Am I a chickenshit for not saying anything before now?:D


I just thought the same thing. kAtE- told me that I ought to post in this thread and I thought "Oh, well I'm kinda high and tired, I'll do it in the morning" and now I've got 50 replies to read :P I'll probably end up reposting or editing this after I've read everyone's posts. But in regards to me having approved anything on irc or whatnot, I was in #mods, but I definitely wasn't reading anything that was being said. But regardless of whether or not I approve, I think Sybil also should have been included in the conversation. I don't think kAtE- is out of line in being angry about this. I hope this is what's still being argued about because I haven't had a chance to read past post 5 or 6.

Sorry for not posting sooner, I'll try and post again tonight after having read more.

Talk about a storm in a teacup.

I just thought the same thing.


Um, just for clarification, you were thinking I was a chickenshit for not writing sooner, or that you too were a chickenshit for not writing until now?

:D

*jumps into thread*

While I do think this 'issue' is a bit redundant (the rules were made, all parties seem to agree they are fair...), I do think all mods of a specific forum should be consulted on certain issues; such as the official rules of said forum.

I really think all that is due here is an apology and promise to include other mods in moderate / major forum decisions -- and of course a nice little group hug (orgy?).

Whatever, just my two cents.

*jumps out of thread*

*takes off clothes and streaks through thread with GoldenPalace.Com tattoo'd on his chest*

Um, just for clarification, you were thinking I was a chickenshit for not writing sooner, or that you too were a chickenshit for not writing until now?

:D

Both, actually.

Haha, not really, the second one.

Ok, since this is the SG thread, I figured I'd bring this up here. I'm sure this is going to get a lot of people pissed off at me, but whatever. I'd rather be honest than lie to you and tell you that I'm happy. But before you get too angry, please realize that these are my opinions and suggestions. I am not forcing anyone change how they moderate their forum, I'd just like everyone to know how I feel.

In short: I feel that people's freedom of speech in SG is being curbed. It also appears that every moderator has a different opinion of what is to be posted in HB and what's to be posted in SG. I'm not sure if this confusion is partially responsible for so many users misplacing their posts and earning themselves unnecessary infraction points, but it's certainly worth taking into consideration.

In my other thread when I'd criticized the moderation of SG, it was things like this that I was talking about (I just couldn't find any examples at the time):

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1999173
And the follow up:
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1999179

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1998944

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1999510

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1999430

I know that moderators moderate in different ways, but I was under the impression that all of those threads were SG relevant. In fact, I was going to reply in two of them, but I got an error message telling me that I couldn't post in closed threads. I'm not here to debate the threads individually, because these are just a few out of many posts that have caught my attention. Some of them may not even be very good examples, they were just the first ones I found.

I know there is a lot of spam in SG, but sometimes when I browse the forum I get the feeling that there's just a bored moderator who wants something to do. On some pages of SG there are actually more closed threads than open threads. I'm just saying that if you're closing more threads than you're leaving open, perhaps you're doing something wrong?

*Ducks*

Edit:
As many of you know, we used to switch moderators in and out of Spurious Generalities. There were two reasons for this. 1) More people get a chance to help moderate the forum. Enough people want to moderate the forum, that it justified making a waiting list before we started the rotation. 2) SG is a large forum with LOTS of traffic. Moderating this forum for more than a month is a trial of ones patience. It helps to have fresh moderators in the forum every so often so that people don’t “burn out” on the forum. When people “burn out” on a forum, they start to abuse their powers and moderate out of boredom and not necessity (remember Snoopy?).

Currently Jeff is the only person who can switch out moderators, but I am in the opinion that nearly all of the mods in the forum need to be replaced with fresh ones. I don't blame them, I blame the fact that they've been modding SG for so long.

I find myself agreeing with zok, especially on the point of moderation out of boredom. It's the one real pitfall of having moderation abilities.

I agree completely with Zok. The current mods have been there quite awhile and there seems to be more bickering going on than there needs to be. Perhaps a break would be the best thing for everyone, totse included.

I agree as well, but I didn't feel right saying anything since I didn't mod the forum.

I really think SG thrives when it's modded loosely in the sense you don't dictate what discussion topics are made, just as long as the topics are actually discussed. I think the main focus of SG mods should be to get rid of spam(not stupid thread, but threads which serve no purpose) and to move threads to other forums if they belong there. That was my philosophy at least.

FUCK ZOK. FUCK HIM IN HIS STUPID ASS. HE HAS A TAIL AND A ONE-EYED MONKEY PICK TICKS OUT OF HIS MANGY HAIR. I WON'T EVEN MENTION THE SMELL.

*This has been a messege provided by people that hate zok.

*This has been a messege provided by people that hate zok.
Where do I find these people? I wanna put the fear of Zok into 'em.

Anyway, what Zok said about the kinds of topics that get closed is right. With some threads, deciding where they belong is a tough call. In those cases, it would usually work best if they were just left alone. WAY more problems come from closing 'iffy' threads than leaving them. But then, I don't post in SG anymore unless I'm linked to a thread by someone. I just assume it's still the same as it's been for however long.

I've said it before, but SG really just isn't the place to be too tough. There are enough real problems that you shouldn't have to worry about stupid threads that still get discussion.

Not pointing fingers or anything, just thought I'd say I didn't close any of those threads.

If I feel that a thread really does have some content however and it fits into a worthy other category, then I'll move it. But then you got those bitches who are just too lazy to move it or who for some reason post it in SG to get "glory" or some shit. That I just close.

Anyway, I never close a thread out of boredom or without reason, and the regulars know this.

WAY more problems come from closing 'iffy' threads than leaving them.

You just hit the nail on the head, son.

You just hit the nail on the head, son.

Zok, I think i should mention that under normal circumstances the SG mods would have sent the first thread you list, as an example, to S&A.

However i made a point of asking them not to move threads to S&A due to the number of spam/troll sex threads being posted in SG at that time.

So the fault for that first thread being closed, and the follow up to it, were mine.

If the OP wants to repost it in S&A then thats fine.

Well I'll say what the other Mods - but Sybil - may not want to say: Those were all my doings.

And except for the last one - which I admit was a mistake and should have left open - I stand by my decision to close them.

None of those others were generating anything more than 'Need pics or other one sentence replies and were things that - as I understand it - belong in HB.

I would have moved them if not for the fact that I've been asked by the Mods of HB to never move anything there. So are we supposed to let those things stay in SG since we can't move them?

It's not out of boredom or burnout that I did that. I've only been here since mid February and have mellowed out quite a bit since Zok asked me too.

Zok, I have always felt that large part of the problem with SG (and the reason why it stresses mods) is that the parameters for what should be posted there are too vague.

Hand on heart neither the regulars nor the mods themselves really know, and I'd guess that even the super-mods wouldn't always agree either.

Can i suggest that instead of bringing in new mods who will only go the way of the others you rewrite the 'mission statement', making it far more precise according to the way you and your co-mods think SG should be and then appoint yourself as a 5th mod and lead by example for a while til everyone has got with the plan?

The present mods all do a good job and are commited to doing a better one, i think.

PS.Sorry if that sounds in any way disrespectful, it sure isn't meant to. Put it down to the fact that I'm mentally translating as I go.

I'm not saying that you guys need to leave SG, I'm saying that SG needs different mods. I think the difference between the two is subtle but important. You guys aren't doing a bad job because you are bad moderators, you're doing a bad job because the forum needs someone new. It's just been way too long on this rotation and I think we need a clean slate. In fact, I think that when you guys were all fresh in there, you were doing the best job out of almost any of the rotations we have had.

But you're still saying that we're doing a bad job, all the same - in your opinion.

I respectfully disagree - at least in my case. Like I said, I've only been here 2 1/2 months, and when I first got in I came in both guns a-blazing, so to speak. Of course there was a backlash - not to mention that crap with Fullcircle.

I think I have to agree with Jack here. Because if you think those threads I closed belonged there and I stand by my decision to close them, then we are obviously seeing two different versions of what SG should be.

Perhaps if you could say why those example threads were ones you feel should have been left open - apart from the last example. I already agreed that I made an error in judgment on that one - I would get a better understanding of what you think what does and doesn't belong in SG.

But I don't want to be take on off SG, I like to watch over my childeren :( :p

Fucking pervert...bet you're one of those freaks who hangs around playgrounds to see if the little girls' skirts fly up !

:P

Fucking pervert...bet you're one of those freaks who hangs around playgrounds to see if the little girls' skirts fly up !

:P


You say that like it's a bad thing.

Fucking pervert...bet you're one of those freaks who hangs around playgrounds to see if the little girls' skirts fly up !

:P

Not really...but if you think that, it does say something about yourself :p

What would Mandy do?

He is the zen freakin' kung fu master of moderation.

I would have left all of those threads where they were. Some of them could fit into other forums, but they were spurious in nature. I see threads being closed because they are stupid, not because they're short on content, or are spam in nature. I say that as long as the thread doesn't clearly belong elsewhere, and doesn't have a content of "discuss" it ought to stay. As Mandy said, moving borderline threads causes more problems than it solves.

I mentioned that on a few of the pages there are more closed threads than open threads. Many of the threads were simply spam, so yes you were correct there. But the fact that there were so many spam threads and "wtf happened to my post?" threads leads me to believe that we just need a new team of mods in the forum. In the past we tried to rotate every 6 to 9 weeks. So my point here is that the amount of threads you're having to close may be somewhat proportionate to the length of time you've been moderating in the forum. People grow tired of the moderation very quickly in that forum. When they do grow tired, they spam and complain to me via the suggestions forum, IRC, and email.

I know you all like moderating the forum and you've grown accustom to it in the last few months, but I stand by my opinion that it's time for a switch.

I would have left all of those threads where they were. Some of them could fit into other forums, but they were spurious in nature. I see threads being closed because they are stupid, not because they're short on content, or are spam in nature. I say that as long as the thread doesn't clearly belong elsewhere, and doesn't have a content of "discuss" it ought to stay. As Mandy said, moving borderline threads causes more problems than it solves.


Ok, I see where you're coming from here. I guess you take a much more relaxed view of what SG should be.

I know you said that you were only expressing your opinion. But you're the boss [and I mean that in a friendly way], and so I will certainly respect it and change the way I look at threads Not saying I wouldn't respect it were you not higher in the food chain.

Now what a bout a thread that does have a lot of body to it, but is something about how at church this guy killed his Mom and fucked her with a shovel handle then stuffed a kitten up her?

I'm not trying to be a smartass here. I used this example because right now there is a thread by someone who posted a story that included that in it, which I closed. He then reposted it and I gave him an infraction, along with deleting the repost.

Well that put him over the limit and he got a 10 day ban. He has just return, talking about his ban. But in it he reposted again the very thing he got locked then locked and an infraction for posting.

My initial reaction was to again lock it and give him yet another infraction for posting it. But in light of this current debate I have held off and not even locked it.

So I have three questions about this:

1.] Was I right - again in your opinion - to close the original?

2.] Was I right in giving him an infraction for reposting something that had been already locked?

3.] What - if anything - do I do about him reposting it yet again?

Again, I ask this in hopes of better understanding how you see how SG should be, and not because I'm getting defensive.


So my point here is that the amount of threads you're having to close may be somewhat proportionate to the length of time you've been moderating in the forum.




Would that be inversely or directly proportional? :D

I think that's just common sense. If it's long but retarded and not discussion inspiring at all, you should obviously close it, but if it's retarded and DOES inspire discussion(or has the potential to do so), then leave it open. I think stories like you posted(and similar ones like the incest stories Exposo posted) obviously won't inspire discussion because there is no question or debate inspiring issue. Things asking would you fuck Anna Nicole's corpse, while unbelievably dumb, actually has the potential to spur legitimate discussion.

You're the super-mod I guess, if you want us out then thats fine. BUT don't think that all of us mod out of boredem, in fact you of all people zok know how I work in SG, and what I've said in past conversation about SG's modding.. if you rememeber...
I've modded SG on and off enough to know when I'm burnt out and just so you know, this ISN'T one of those times - in fact vbul, as I said in another thread, has made modding SG more of pleasure :p

The only thing I've done 'wrong' is bitched about it, in here.



Oh and to make this clear, I'm not whinning about you wanting to remove me/us. Just so you guys know I'm not that much of a bitchy cunt. (I'm really not, I get the impression that half the mods think I'm some nutty controlling bitch lawl).

Don't worry Kate, I don't think you're a bitch.:)

Zok didn't say he wants us out. He said SG needs some new Mods. Since the new software allows for more than 4 Mods, saying the later does not anymore imply the former.

He said SG needs some new Mods. Since the new software allows for more than 4 Mods, saying the later does not anymore imply the former.

From my understanding, the concept of new mods and rotation includes removal. I don't see how it could involve anything else.

From my understanding, the concept of new mods and rotation includes removal. I don't see how it could involve anything else.

What he said ^


And thanks meta :)

From my understanding, the concept of new mods and rotation includes removal. I don't see how it could involve anything else.

That was my intention. A clean slate. Of course, there are two other super mods and Jeff who should also have a say in this, so my word is not final. I just think it's time to get a fresh bunch of people in the forum and continue the rotation. The forum is restless and it shows.

I'm not saying that you guys need to leave SG, I'm saying that SG needs different mods. I think the difference between the two is subtle but important.


I took that to mean adding new Mods, but leaving the rest too. I guess I'm being denser than usual today.

You do mean that the mods of SG will be rotated don't you? You won't rotate everybody in every forum or something...?

No, hes ONLY talking about SG. Why would he rotate mods that are prefectly suited to the specialised forums? :p It's just like what we were doing, a new mod in, old one out every 6ish weeks.