Jump to content
Blackorchad

A suggestion

Recommended Posts

you store all your files in C:\ ?

Yes, actually, how did you know? Well, I suppose they're on the same drive as partition C on my server, so it's not quite correct to say that.

 

We'll go with D:\ ;)

 

And I firmly believe in the freedom to express oneself in a relaxed way as a part of the community on the forums - something that isn't replicated on facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time killing WOYM seemed like it might help the forums.

IMO,it was the beginning of ' the seriousness ' of The Green Room . It seemed that light hearted banter, and quick, quirky insights, were all verbotten.

We must get serious and post individual threads

Members were told if they had something to say they could only say it by making a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, personally, but let's see what the community thinks...

I know we've seen this idea floated before. I know we have. I personally don't see it working.

 

Also, WOYM was a monster. The Green Room was brilliant* for years before it, killing it did not kill The Green Room.

 

 

 

* Well, not quite the right word I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I firmly believe in the freedom to express oneself in a relaxed way as a part of the community on the forums - something that isn't replicated on facebook.

Agreed.

 

In a previous discussion on this topic we talked about a 'shout box' as a part of the green room. Providing a location for the 'relaxed comments', without making it as permanent as a 'General Thread' which could lead to a reduction in new threads. I think there might be an existing thread on just that topic ;)

 

Anyway, throwing up such ideas is good...

 

 

Also, WOYM was a monster. The Green Room was brilliant* for years before it, killing it did not kill The Green Room.

 

 

 

* Well, not quite the right word I guess...

+1

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I firmly believe in the freedom to express oneself in a relaxed way as a part of the community on the forums - something that isn't replicated on facebook.

Agreed.

 

In a previous discussion on this topic we talked about a 'shout box' as a part of the green room. Providing a location for the 'relaxed comments', without making it as permanent as a 'General Thread' which could lead to a reduction in new threads. I think there might be an existing thread on just that topic ;)

 

Anyway, throwing up such ideas is good...

 

... snip ...

 

 

Shout box ?

 

Old The Green room fragmenting idea ... Is Old !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see WOYM again, I never participated in it, it may have been around during the several years I didn't use the forums, but I like the sound of it.

 

This idea sounds a bit bloated overall, adding more sections to an already slow-paced forum is asking for trouble.

 

I just think the place needs to be marketed better - make it known, attract new users in some way shape or form - I have no idea how this could be done as I'm no marketing guru... But there's potential there, if people actually read these forums they would find there to be a plethora of extremely smart and extremely handy fellas (and ladies ofc.) Marketing guys AND the current forum users need to give them a reason to stick around. Threads that are fun to participate in, interesting conversation topics (already covered in TGR... Sometimes... Always covered in tech sections), possibly more competitions. I have nfi.

 

Threads like the lurkers thread over in TGR are a good start anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time killing WOYM seemed like it might help the forums.

IMO,it was the beginning of ' the seriousness ' of The Green Room . It seemed that light hearted banter, and quick, quirky insights, were all verbotten.

 

 

It might be just me but I don't remember any suppression of banter or insights. You can still do those things without anyone jumping on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be just me but I don't remember any suppression of banter or insights. You can still do those things without anyone jumping on you.

Forcing people to start a new thread for a new thread of conversation? Why are you so insistent on taking away peoples' choices?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

done this to 2 different degrees, been moderators on both.

 

1: The Fight Club. Open forum, no real rules except to leave family out of it. this was to make sure it wass kept personal or on topic (mostly) actual threats of violence were also not tollerated. it was all about the nerd rage. went well. until no one had anything to rage about. the mods are always needed and would have to step into a nerd rage zone. it also fostered hightened angst in other parts adn threads were moved to the fight club if people could not make a new thread of their own. this was fine as the forum was small but on forum of this size, that a lot of moderation which means modes get noticed more instead of being ataining that ninja like state. but it was also noted that it was hard to keep soem personal offence in the fight club and some had to be stepped on hard because they could not leave it in fight club.

 

2: Mods removed from a forum. it started with wanting to foster open, vibrant manly discussions. it was pointed out that this could be done under the existing rule structure but the admin really wanted it. so when the other blocking admin was no longer on the forum, the change happened. there was a good amount of influence from another forum which was private and run, owned and admined by 1 guy who was part of a team/group/club that was of like minded people irl so that other forum was run by weight of personality. Back to the forum in my example.

the 1st thing that went up was the macho testcle dragging as every one pushed for their place and the new tone was established. it became a forum of keyboard heros and friends. it turned people off and alienated market segments. like the family friendly and female markets.

some that left came back later because they liked the guys and got the stuff that was no longer at that forum else where. some never went back.

 

the effects of true freedom of speech will spill out of the UFC room. it will mean mods are more visable in contentious threads as they move them and because some people will be hurt and take further jabs in normal threads.

 

I would sugest what was a simpler rule of engagement from the 2nd forum I talked about. play the ball not the man. attack the idea not the person. (that was before the mods were ditched) and look at what the current rules really allow. with out the need for a special room.

It is my experience that you can really rip an idea apart with out offence but any personal slight or even back handed put down like, "only and child molester would talk like that, but I'm not calling you a child molester" should be right out.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, we have enough depressives here already, we don't need a "Blue" room.

 

OTOH a "RED" room sounds great. ;{)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, we have enough depressives here already, we don't need a "Blue" room.

 

OTOH a "RED" room sounds great. ;{)

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, we have enough depressives here already, we don't need a "Blue" room.

 

OTOH a "RED" room sounds great. ;{)

good idea ... comrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time killing WOYM seemed like it might help the forums. At this point though, it can't hurt them to bring it back.

 

That's not why we initially locked it. It was because too many users were taking too many pot shots at each other and the vast majority of RTMs coming through were from that 1 thread alone.

 

Back to the OP:

 

I don't mind this idea, I honestly don't but you hit a problem in your first post there, that you'd allow everything / anything within reason. In other words there would still be rules there. Regardless of where you, me, we draw the line in the sand and say "ok this isn't allowed, this is allowed, that's a grey area" there will be people there breaking the rules, tip toeing around it and those that will say we're over enforcing them or not enforcing them enough. In the time I've been a Mod, I've honestly copped both of those evenly, you just can't keep everyone happy.

 

Also I don't agree that things like that should really be changed just to increase traffic, otherwise we may as well be 4chan and have Anon logins and an 'everything goes' scenario.

 

I've said this before, but to increase chatter, we need to hold onto new people and encourage them to come / stay here. It needs to be an environment where we don't look / talk down to each other and harass one another in threads / PMs and get shirty all the time. I mean hell we've had to lock threads because people like nVidia over ATI. Atomic has always been primarily a place where people were friendly and could openly discuss things without getting cranky, etc. For newbies it was very welcoming. Not so sure of that anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a big post typed up, but really - I don't know if I can be fucked.

 

So in point form:

 

1) Framenting the green room will make for one fast forum that everyone reads (the controversial one) and a dead zone. The proof of this is that if you were to sort each thread by view/posts, the top threads will either be controversial ones, or the ones that require little genuine input (woym, cooking, purchase, listening to).

 

2) WOYM was a cancer on the forums. Removing it encouraged some people to post more, and others to leave. People in the first group should be commended for making the effort. People in the second group can fuck right off, as its clear they had no intention of making any meaningful contribution to this place.

 

3) Context is needed just as much as the need for mid and long term suspensions. How someone can get a ban for a mostly inoffensive parody account, and someone else can get a 30 day suspension for threatening violence upon another user with the justification that they were antagonised is beyond me. A short to mid term suspension for the first case, sure. A bit of a heavy handed lesson on not to do it, with no real act of contrition required beyond an "oops" (that is, unless the individual used the fake account to actually cause drama). The second? Well, i'll leave that up to others to decide.

 

But there needs to be an understanding that even the most level heads will have a hot button topic, and dealt with accordingly should they break one of the "rules". To say one week that someone is worth of POTM, then the next that they bring nothing of value to the forums is quite obviously contradictory. But to look at the behaviour they displayed in the thread that was their undoing (and similar threads in the past) would show that others reacted similarly, granted on a lesser scale. Maybe he just can't stand the way that some people immediately lash out when questioned, in much the same way I obviously can't stand those who lie in threads to falsify a level of authority on a topic.

 

4) You're a mod. Fucking act like one. If you've got a cold, having a bad day, or just don't like the person you're dealing with - hand it to another mod. If you can't do that, keep your shit in check. You're held to a higher level of standards to the rest of us, and so you should be. If you can't hack that, then walk away from it and get involved with everyone else. Or, alternatively, have generic mod accounts so that personality disputes can be left out of it. For all the talk that its the argumentative types scaring folks away, imagine a new user coming to feedback to see a mod being a prick for what appears to be no good reason.

 

I'll leave it at that. I meant to keep it short and sweet, and have failed to do so. Pick over it, dispute it, ridicule it, go nuts. I used to get involved fairly heavily in these threads but my level of caring only really extends to what I've posted here.

Edited by Juggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For newbies it was very welcoming. Not so sure of that anymore.

Oh, i don't know. I haven't missed any alt witch hunts lately, have I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be just me but I don't remember any suppression of banter or insights. You can still do those things without anyone jumping on you.

Forcing people to start a new thread for a new thread of conversation? Why are you so insistent on taking away peoples' choices?!

 

Huh? Am I a moderator now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are!? ... crap I bet Hlass is going to Ban me.

 

I had an idea for a 'Newbie town' forum for people to post in, where it would be heavily moderated (emphasis on HEAVILY) lots of FAQs and a place to ask questions and not get flamed for repeated "Read the FAQ!" responses or such things.

 

What's funny about Juggs' post is that yesterday / today I am having a bad day and I do have a cold :( guess that's not actually funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be just me but I don't remember any suppression of banter or insights. You can still do those things without anyone jumping on you.

Forcing people to start a new thread for a new thread of conversation? Why are you so insistent on taking away peoples' choices?!

 

All these comments were made in Mac Dude's feedback threads about how the WOYM thread was disrupting The Green Room's ability to create more threads. Removing the thread has not proven that at all.

It seems with time that less threads and slower movement generally in TGR seems to be the order of the day.

 

And I'll take up you offer Juggs :)....

 

I had a big post typed up, but really - I don't know if I can be fucked.

 

So in point form:

 

1) Framenting the green room will make for one fast forum that everyone reads (the controversial one) and a dead zone. The proof of this is that if you were to sort each thread by view/posts, the top threads will either be controversial ones, or the ones that require little genuine input (woym, cooking, purchase, listening to).

Just because they might require little input, does not make the input un genuine :) And any way, I don't see what's so wrong with ' little input '. I've seen little input in threads today and yesterday, that no one seems to object to ...

 

2) WOYM was a cancer on the forums. Removing it encouraged some people to post more, and others to leave. People in the first group should be commended for making the effort. People in the second group can fuck right off, as its clear they had no intention of making any meaningful contribution to this place.

Well, some did fuck right off, some sporadically posted for a while then seemed not to log in anymore ... There's nothing here to be commended for, I mean we're talking about TGR, not Tech. This area is for casual convo afterall.

3) Context is needed just as much as the need for mid and long term suspensions. How someone can get a ban for a mostly inoffensive parody account, and someone else can get a 30 day suspension for threatening violence upon another user with the justification that they were antagonised is beyond me. A short to mid term suspension for the first case, sure. A bit of a heavy handed lesson on not to do it, with no real act of contrition required beyond an "oops" (that is, unless the individual used the fake account to actually cause drama). The second? Well, i'll leave that up to others to decide.

 

But there needs to be an understanding that even the most level heads will have a hot button topic, and dealt with accordingly should they break one of the "rules". To say one week that someone is worth of POTM, then the next that they bring nothing of value to the forums is quite obviously contradictory. But to look at the behaviour they displayed in the thread that was their undoing (and similar threads in the past) would show that others reacted similarly, granted on a lesser scale. Maybe he just can't stand the way that some people immediately lash out when questioned, in much the same way I obviously can't stand those who lie in threads to falsify a level of authority on a topic.

I believe you're speaking of NukeJockey and chrisg.

Privileged people expect to be dealt with leniently. As to whether they are actually privileged in any way but their own minds, is up for the call. Both parties new what they were doing was against the FAQ.

Context ... NJ barely has a nasty thing to say or do against anyone that I've seen, so in context his intention should have been clear, and Caelum needs to be clearer in his RTM's.

Down to brass tacks. NJ has "hero" status and must surely know the FAQ, and know that his post could/would lead to a ban.

IMO, he should not be feeling angry for his banning, he should feel a bit silly for thinking he'd get away with one of the FAQ's "Very Bad things".

 

IIRC both you and chrisg did a 30 day suspension.

 

IMO you should have done sixty days, and chrisg should've been banned. * shrugs *

 

4) You're a mod. Fucking act like one. If you've got a cold, having a bad day, or just don't like the person you're dealing with - hand it to another mod. If you can't do that, keep your shit in check. You're held to a higher level of standards to the rest of us, and so you should be. If you can't hack that, then walk away from it and get involved with everyone else. Or, alternatively, have generic mod accounts so that personality disputes can be left out of it. For all the talk that its the argumentative types scaring folks away, imagine a new user coming to feedback to see a mod being a prick for what appears to be no good reason.

...snip ...

I concur with this.

 

 

edit: for clarity.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had no real idea what was in the FAQ these days, especially the VBT section, until I had a look the other day. I expect it's the same for most people, blue ranks or otherwise: there's a vague and general sense, but people tend to break the 'guidelines' because they don't think something is a guideline, or because they're so fired up they don't stop to ask if it's in there somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had no real idea what was in the FAQ these days, especially the VBT section, until I had a look the other day. I expect it's the same for most people, blue ranks or otherwise: there's a vague and general sense, but people tend to break the 'guidelines' because they don't think something is a guideline, or because they're so fired up they don't stop to ask if it's in there somewhere.

Maybe, but NJ said he mis-spelt Caelum's name on purpose as part of his jest ... that implies don't you think, that he knew that impersonating another user was a Big No-No ? I think most of us know that 'rule' without having to go

back and check the FAQ. Don't mis understand me, I'm going to miss NJ's presence ... unless he chill's and emails David that is. I'm hoping NJ emails soonish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that he misspelled Caelum's 'name' deliberately because that is the typo someone was using to refer to Caelum - and the whole point of that account was to laugh at someone's reading/typing skills.

 

Perhaps 5-6 years ago there was a spate of fresh alt accounts made because the old system let you start a new account name with a space/blank spaces, but didn't show it there when the user posted etc. I am scratching my head trying to remember - and am failing dismally - if we only created impostors of our own accounts, or of a small handful of select people who were generally all in on it, too. Presumably the 'rule' about impostor accounts came in after that. The rule about counterfeit accounts that I remember had more to do with creating an account and assuming the alias of non-members, eg politicians or etc.

Edited by Nich...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that he misspelled Caelum's 'name' deliberately because that is the typo someone was using to refer to Caelum - and the whole point of that account was to laugh at someone's reading/typing skills.

Yep you're right, but it still amounts to the same as I said.

 

Perhaps 5-6 years ago there was a spate of fresh alt accounts made because the old system let you start a new account name with a space/blank spaces, but didn't show it there when the user posted etc. I am scratching my head trying to remember - and am failing dismally - if we only created impostors of our own accounts, or of a small handful of select people who were generally all in on it, too. Presumably the 'rule' about impostor accounts came in after that. The rule about counterfeit accounts that I remember had more to do with creating an account and assuming the alias of non-members, eg politicians or etc.

This is before my time here ... needs an archive search maybe ? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×