Moderator: Community Team
hulmey wrote:im a strong believer in this system you are advocating. I do believe it shouldnt be moderated by a closed group though. It should be moderated by all as you have defined.
The advantages are obvious and it also brings the community closer together. I hope Twill comments on this coz i think it would be a great step forward for CC kind.
Fruitcake wrote:Kudos to you jim. A very good idea it seems.
I would be happy to share some of the burden of either of the ideas you have put forward. However, I do think for expeditious purposes, a community elected body should deal with the final say in some areas. I only say this because experience has taught me that too many inputs would slow the whole thing down to a crawl, and if, as I believe you have said, time could be of the essence, then this becomes something of a necessity.
jiminski wrote:Fruitcake wrote:Kudos to you jim. A very good idea it seems.
I would be happy to share some of the burden of either of the ideas you have put forward. However, I do think for expeditious purposes, a community elected body should deal with the final say in some areas. I only say this because experience has taught me that too many inputs would slow the whole thing down to a crawl, and if, as I believe you have said, time could be of the essence, then this becomes something of a necessity.
thanks and Agreed Fruitcake!.. but what we propose .. (there is a lot of info there, so understand the detail can be missed) is that there be a ceiling of votes needed to constitute an authoritative decision!
Say it is open to the whole site, we could set the limit at 100 votes with 95% approval to make it a live comment.
Fruitcake wrote:jiminski wrote:Fruitcake wrote:Kudos to you jim. A very good idea it seems.
I would be happy to share some of the burden of either of the ideas you have put forward. However, I do think for expeditious purposes, a community elected body should deal with the final say in some areas. I only say this because experience has taught me that too many inputs would slow the whole thing down to a crawl, and if, as I believe you have said, time could be of the essence, then this becomes something of a necessity.
thanks and Agreed Fruitcake!.. but what we propose .. (there is a lot of info there, so understand the detail can be missed) is that there be a ceiling of votes needed to constitute an authoritative decision!
Say it is open to the whole site, we could set the limit at 100 votes with 95% approval to make it a live comment.
OK...I hear what you are saying. One concern...does this not open another can of worms...that of politicking and general abuse on that very thread? or am I missing something old chap.
I truly do think you may have something here.
Fruitcake wrote:Well so far so proper.
Sounds very good to me, and with fear of being accused of politicking myself, I would suggest strongly that the community vote hard for this. It resolves so many issues.
KoE_Sirius wrote:...Lets move on with the new.
Coleman wrote:I voted no because one of the huge reasons feedback was removed was so that moderation could do other things rather than field feedback complaints. If we let people add comments it just recreates the old problem, and I don't see the increased community moderation being something lack would agree with, it's hard enough keeping the 'real' moderators in line sometimes.
Maybe eventually comments could come back, but right now it would use up the man power in ways that lack doesn't want. He wants to be able to spend more time adding features, and I want him to do that as well.
What I wouldn't mind is where you could add comments to remind yourself why you rated the player the way you did, that only you (or maybe you and your friends) can see. But it isn't that important to me.
KLOBBER wrote:The new rating system ...needs ...improvement or adjustment.. especially... the idea in this thread.
Love it! .... How convenient!
Thanks, ....![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Coleman wrote:...it's hard enough keeping the 'real' moderators in line sometimes.
jiminski wrote:KLOBBER wrote:The new rating system ...needs ...improvement or adjustment.. especially... the idea in this thread.
Love it! .... How convenient!
Thanks, ....![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
you are most welcome Klobby!
KLOBBER wrote:jiminski wrote:KLOBBER wrote:The new rating system ...needs ...improvement or adjustment.. especially... the idea in this thread.
Love it! .... How convenient!
Thanks, ....![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
you are most welcome Klobby!
That was, without question, the MOST RETARDED post I have ever seen on this site.
jiminski wrote:well that makes a lot of sense Klobby; all your posts look like you did not read them before sending.
KLOBBER wrote:jiminski wrote:well that makes a lot of sense Klobby; all your posts look like you did not read them before sending.
To a person who has trouble reading, they may look like that.
firstholliday wrote:Don't mind the circus maximus noob jim.
KLOBBER wrote:jiminski wrote:KLOBBER wrote:The new rating system ...needs ...improvement or adjustment.. especially... the idea in this thread.
Love it! .... How convenient!
Thanks, ....![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
you are most welcome Klobby!
That was, without question, the MOST RETARDED post I have ever seen on this site.
It was also an intentional misquote. In most cases, you had the intelligence to put ellipses where you deleted the most important words (although you accomplished that with the literary finesse of a chimpanzee), but you forgot the ellipse when you misquoted the following phrase:
"...the INCREDIBLY STUPID idea in this thread."
Get a life; your idea rots.
Coleman wrote:I voted no because one of the huge reasons feedback was removed was so that moderation could do other things rather than field feedback complaints. If we let people add comments it just recreates the old problem, and I don't see the increased community moderation being something lack would agree with, it's hard enough keeping the 'real' moderators in line sometimes.
Maybe eventually comments could come back, but right now it would use up the man power in ways that lack doesn't want. He wants to be able to spend more time adding features, and I want him to do that as well.
What I wouldn't mind is where you could add comments to remind yourself why you rated the player the way you did, that only you (or maybe you and your friends) can see. But it isn't that important to me.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users