Ryvucz, on 13 November 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:
I'd like to see an ignore user option for the forums. Kind of like how they have the deleted post thingy, just "Ignored User" banner in its place.
Even if some people are generally helpful on the forums, some individuals just simply cannot get along with certain other individuals, even though both sides can get along with everyone else. In these cases we advocate they ignore one another.
Stickjock, on 13 November 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:
I think we have just what you're asking for... right now. Mods have their hands full, only so many of them around you know. But, I think they do a great job... report those threads/posts that violate the CoC/ToU... that way the "KNOW" about them and can act...
There are enough of us to
take action on flames/troublemakers etc. There are not enough of us to
detect flames/troublemakers etc. The Report system allows you to flag a thread, which will bring us down on it. Sometimes, what some users feel warrants action to us does not warrant action - some users are more sensitive than others after all.
The purpose of moderation is not to stifle discourse by making everyone afraid to type something wrong and have the banhammer fall on them. It is to encourage discourse by removing behaviour that would make people unwilling to use the forums. Very few people like to be flamed. We are trying to make the entirety of the forums the 'mature club' you speak of, while not excluding those who are younger who already have enough maturity to contribute to useful discussion.
Age limits aren't going to be very useful in this day and age, there are 30 year olds who act like kids and annoy the heck out of everyone else, and there are 14 year olds with the maturity and intelligence of people beyond their years. Instead of hard-limiting, the system attempts to specifically remove those who only cause trouble to the forums. But generally speaking, when in doubt, we usually take no action. Keeping in mind that moderation is to encourage discussion, if we were to penalise every single action, people would not talk at all. But we have our ways of keeping track of people, so that even if we were to do nothing for minor offenses, we will be aware if a user repeatedly causes minor-scale trouble, and when the time comes that we are sure they will only bring more trouble than benefit to the community, they will be removed.
Ragor, on 13 November 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:
Yes, me is aware that this would split the community to some degree.
It would, and we would like to avoid doing that.
Ragor, on 20 November 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:
It is not at all about disagreeing or having a different opinion - this is the whole point of a forum.
It is all about the chosen words.
IMO there is quite a difference between 'critics' and 'flaming'.
The mentality to imply in post that the individual posters opinion is the only stone of wisdom <- get adult.
The mentality to of putting as many polemics into one sentence as possible <- get adult.
The mentality of insulting other users the poster doesn't even know <- get adult.
The mentality of spamming the forum with the same topic over and over and over again <- get adult.
Again, bringing up critics, disagreeing with the design decisions - all fine.
All what counts is in what form it is brought up.
He put it quite well. People will generally not agree on everything, but as long as we disagree in a civil manner, that is good. In a way, disagreement is more useful than agreement - imagine how useful the feedback to the developers would be if everyone only created threads like 'you're doing a good job, everything's perfect!'. They wouldn't know where to begin to make things better.
The way that you disagree is paramount. Talking about why you think the way you do, attempting to understand why the other party disagrees, phrasing your arguments to attempt to convince the other party based on what you think the other party values - this is useful.
'Your idea is bad, you are bad, you should feel bad, and [REDACT] you too' - this is flaming, useless, and will be moderated away.
2
