11 Aug, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 182nd comment:
I am a nerd =(
11 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 183rd comment:
Runter said:
I'm curious of the window we're looking at for any of this to come to fruition.
I'm also curious about the time frame, if anything due to, well, curiosity. :smile:
(Also, folks, can we please try to keep things on topic at least a little bit…)
11 Aug, 2009, Davion wrote in the 184th comment:
I'd really like to see what more people have to say, because using 11 people as a basis for a moderator seems unfair. But thanks to those who did send stuff. Given us some useful info.
11 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 185th comment:
Well, that could be for any number of reasons. First, perhaps not that many people strongly care one way or the other. Second, you made it quite clear that the suggestions were truly just suggestions and not binding, so people have less incentive to speak up. Finally, these two are related, for those who care the most are those most likely to speak up. It's been a while, after all.
11 Aug, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 186th comment:
Davion said:
I'd really like to see what more people have to say, because using 11 people as a basis for a moderator seems unfair. But thanks to those who did send stuff. Given us some useful info.
So, Davion, exactly how many people did you use as a basis for having Samson moderate again, and about how fair would you say that was?
11 Aug, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 187th comment:
Gore vs Bush clearly displays that Samson won fair and square. It's inappropriate to question that decision. :P
11 Aug, 2009, Guest wrote in the 188th comment:
Lobotomy said:
So, Davion, exactly how many people did you use as a basis for having Samson moderate again, and about how fair would you say that was?
See post #181, because I think her answer to that fits best as a response to this.
11 Aug, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 189th comment:
Davion said:
I'd really like to see what more people have to say, because using 11 people as a basis for a moderator seems unfair.
It might be considered unfair if nobody else was allowed a say. But they were.
11 Aug, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 190th comment:
Samson said:
See post #181, because I think her answer to that fits best as a response to this.
Lobotomy said:
So, Davion, exactly how many people did you use as a basis for having Samson moderate again, and about how fair would you say that was?
See post #181, because I think her answer to that fits best as a response to this.
You're confused, Samson. I was asking Davion, not you.
Also, I already read Sandi's post and I disagree with it, but that really should go without saying.
11 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 191st comment:
KaVir said:
It might be considered unfair if nobody else was allowed a say. But they were.
Davion said:
I'd really like to see what more people have to say, because using 11 people as a basis for a moderator seems unfair.
It might be considered unfair if nobody else was allowed a say. But they were.
I'd add to that that if somebody doesn't really care about something, it's unclear to me how much weight their preference should be given in the first place. After all, they have relatively little incentive to think about the issue, and relatively little impact if the consequences are bad. I suspect that the people who care enough to say something have already done so, and those who haven't probably don't care enough one way or the other.
11 Aug, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 192nd comment:
Flumpy = Scandum
I figured it out! :D
I figured it out! :D
11 Aug, 2009, Koron wrote in the 193rd comment:
David Haley said:
I'd add to that that if somebody doesn't really care about something, it's unclear to me how much weight their preference should be given in the first place. After all, they have relatively little incentive to think about the issue, and relatively little impact if the consequences are bad. I suspect that the people who care enough to say something have already done so, and those who haven't probably don't care enough one way or the other.
KaVir said:
It might be considered unfair if nobody else was allowed a say. But they were.
Davion said:
I'd really like to see what more people have to say, because using 11 people as a basis for a moderator seems unfair.
It might be considered unfair if nobody else was allowed a say. But they were.
I'd add to that that if somebody doesn't really care about something, it's unclear to me how much weight their preference should be given in the first place. After all, they have relatively little incentive to think about the issue, and relatively little impact if the consequences are bad. I suspect that the people who care enough to say something have already done so, and those who haven't probably don't care enough one way or the other.
Since we're apparently basing the weightedness of a point upon how many people think it's a good one, I feel obligated to voice my agreement here. If people were given the opportunity to weigh in and didn't, their silence should be taken as implicit statements of apathy.
Davion, If you do not feel the level of response to this question has been high enough, I recommend you create a frontpage entry concerning the question of moderator recommendations.
11 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 194th comment:
Koron said:
Davion, If you do not feel the level of response to this question has been high enough, I recommend you create a frontpage entry concerning the question of moderator recommendations.
I'm not sure this is necessary. Those who care about moderation are those who read the forums. Those who read the forums have had quite some time to see this thread. So, it is unlikely that they will care any more that something is on the front page instead of the forum post list. (To be honest, I'm still not convinced that many regulars actually look at the front page.)
The exception to this would only be if somebody didn't trawl through this thread to see Davion's PM request, in which case I still think that a single locked post (to reduce noise) should be enough: people who read the forums will see it.
11 Aug, 2009, Guest wrote in the 195th comment:
Lobotomy said:
You're confused, Samson. I was asking Davion, not you.
Also, I already read Sandi's post and I disagree with it, but that really should go without saying.
Also, I already read Sandi's post and I disagree with it, but that really should go without saying.
Nope. Wasn't confused. And I still think her response fits nicely. I threw my dull axe away a long time ago.
11 Aug, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 196th comment:
Samson said:
Nope. Wasn't confused. And I still think her response fits nicely. I threw my dull axe away a long time ago.
Lobotomy said:
You're confused, Samson. I was asking Davion, not you.
Also, I already read Sandi's post and I disagree with it, but that really should go without saying.
Also, I already read Sandi's post and I disagree with it, but that really should go without saying.
Nope. Wasn't confused. And I still think her response fits nicely. I threw my dull axe away a long time ago.
I might be wrong, but I think that at one point in time, I was probably in Samson's top 5 of those he wanted to bury that axe into. Let's also not forget that Samson and I might be about as polar opposites as it gets in regards to our political outlook and our view of the current administration… That said, we agreed publicly to bury that axe, and although there was a couple of rough patches along the way, but I feel like we get along rather well now, and there have been a handful of issues I've been able to deal with him through PMs and I can honestly say that I believe there is no longer any ill will on either side.
The thing is, I feel like we've both compromised a bit in order to reach a place where we can get along. I do believe Samson has changed quite a bit since the early days of this site, the super long bit of drama with Cratylus, the Scandum situation, and such… Some of the issues I've felt strongly about I feel like have been addressed. I've done my best to handle things out of the public eye when possible (and have found the results generally more favorably this way as well), resisted any more urges to run off to TMC to voice my concerns, shown a greater degree of respect for the Administration and my fellow posters, and tried to resist any excessive trolling.
That's where I feel some of the problems come from, when one or more people become unwilling to let there be any give at all. Some posters here seem so deeply rooted in certain attitudes that nothing short of TMC style moderation will please them (and if that's what you want, I assure you there is a place for that), while others have an idea in their head how things should be and they seem completely unflinching in that. I've seen on numerous occasions the Administration here give, I've seen them be flexible, I've seen decisions I've not agreed with reversed, I've seen them come to the forums numerous times to ask for input or advice… There are a large portion of posters here that I can say the same for as well, but unfortunately there are also a sizable portion that I can't. Again, I've seen the Administration give, but clearly there is only so much they can before it devolves into a place few of us would want to be a part of (I think there's a reason this site has been infinitely more active than TMC has been lately… and I think that can be pointed to as a show of which moderation style ultimately works). If the Administration is willing to give, then I think its our responsibility to be less draconian ourselves.
Thus concludes my "can't we all just get along" rant.
12 Aug, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 197th comment:
Hades_Kane said:
That's where I feel some of the problems come from, when one or more people become unwilling to let there be any give at all. Some posters here seem so deeply rooted in certain attitudes that nothing short of TMC style moderation will please them (and if that's what you want, I assure you there is a place for that), while others have an idea in their head how things should be and they seem completely unflinching in that. I've seen on numerous occasions the Administration here give, I've seen them be flexible, I've seen decisions I've not agreed with reversed, I've seen them come to the forums numerous times to ask for input or advice… There are a large portion of posters here that I can say the same for as well, but unfortunately there are also a sizable portion that I can't. Again, I've seen the Administration give, but clearly there is only so much they can before it devolves into a place few of us would want to be a part of (I think there's a reason this site has been infinitely more active than TMC has been lately… and I think that can be pointed to as a show of which moderation style ultimately works). If the Administration is willing to give, then I think its our responsibility to be less draconian ourselves.
Well said!
12 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 198th comment:
There is no doubt that for a culture change to occur, those participating in the culture have to make it happen. (This is almost a tautological statement, short of outright banning everybody who doesn't conform.) That requires that everybody (well, particularly the regulars) set the example, and gently remind other people when they are not setting the example.
12 Aug, 2009, Runter wrote in the 199th comment:
David Haley said:
There is no doubt that for a culture change to occur, those participating in the culture have to make it happen. (This is almost a tautological statement, short of outright banning everybody who doesn't conform.) That requires that everybody (well, particularly the regulars) set the example, and gently remind other people when they are not setting the example.
The regulars are a bunch of trolls.
12 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 200th comment:
I'm assuming you're making a joke, but that kind of comment is kind of the thing I'm talking about with respect to setting the example. :thinking:
Random Picks
Samson has changed over the last year, I think a few others should, as well. Those old axes you're grinding are pretty dull by now.
Yes and yes, to Samson's proposals.