Conquer Club

Juan_Bottom wrote:

hecter wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Frigidus wrote:which is rather surprising considering that he was spamming threads just earlier today.

I would like to say that I didn't even recieve a warning for that, which strengthens my belief that Clapper is one of us awesome NYBers.

And I've posted porn, flame outside of FW, spammed and just about broke every rule on the guidelines that I haven't received warnings for... It's really like getting pulled over for speeding - you never know when a warning is going to come.
Stick me on the big list, obv.

Then why make a petition for less modding? Your a prime example of what I'm talking about. I'm not being convinced that there is a need... If anything, this can only lead to more crackdowns as we are so lawless that we challenge the little authority that there is.

Really the complaint might be better explained not as less modding, but as more consistent modding, both with the rules and between posters.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

mandyb wrote:I agree with heavy. We did have a 'serious business' thread over at NOTA in which people could discuss the more...well, serious topics without the interuptions, but the chat forum was definitely the busier of the two.

It's like if you go to the pub with your mates - your conversation flows from serious to lighthearted to funny to downright daft and back again. That's the way normal chit-chat works.
And if the people are happy with it like this then why not give them it?

On this, I propose (if it has not been proposed already or already exists) that Spamalot be given a separate forum from the non-CC specific discussion forum. If people want to engage in serious discussions, then we should be allowed to have those discussions without "spam" and thread de-railment (HC, arrogance is too strong a word, but it works), while at the same time if people want to blabber nonsence, I see no harm if they do so without smothering good topics with said nonsence.

I don't think that's a good idea. i mean even if you got a separate forum for your serious topics i don't think you would see that much of a difference. I mean the truly serious threads from what I have seen rarely have any sort of spam problem and it rarely gets them off track. If you moved forums i think you would still see this level of spam to an extent just like every once in a while you see an off-topics forum come down from General Discussions.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Then why make a petition for less modding? Your a prime example of what I'm talking about. I'm not being convinced that there is a need... If anything, this can only lead to more crackdowns as we are so lawless that we challenge the little authority that there is.

If you'll notice I have over 17'000 posts. That's a LOT. Of course if you sift through all my posts you'll find things that you shouldn't, but the worst stuff would probably be in the earlier posts... But that isn't really what the OP is about, it's the fact that the mods are trying to force their rules on it when the majority (as shown by the mere two people on the "no" list) of people are asking them to please not to. Meanwhile, when modding is asked for, nobody of authority steps in. As it was put, the moderation is horribly inconsistent.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

mandyb wrote:I agree with heavy. We did have a 'serious business' thread over at NOTA in which people could discuss the more...well, serious topics without the interuptions, but the chat forum was definitely the busier of the two.

It's like if you go to the pub with your mates - your conversation flows from serious to lighthearted to funny to downright daft and back again. That's the way normal chit-chat works.
And if the people are happy with it like this then why not give them it?

On this, I propose (if it has not been proposed already or already exists) that Spamalot be given a separate forum from the non-CC specific discussion forum. If people want to engage in serious discussions, then we should be allowed to have those discussions without "spam" and thread de-railment (HC, arrogance is too strong a word, but it works), while at the same time if people want to blabber nonsence, I see no harm if they do so without smothering good topics with said nonsence.

I already suggested that. They shot it down. That's why I'm throwing my support behind this petition.

I am to be added to the big list. Thanks

and whilst I'm at it, free suggs.

hecter wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Frigidus wrote:which is rather surprising considering that he was spamming threads just earlier today.

I would like to say that I didn't even recieve a warning for that, which strengthens my belief that Clapper is one of us awesome NYBers.

And I've posted porn, flame outside of FW, spammed and just about broke every rule on the guidelines that I haven't received warnings for... It's really like getting pulled over for speeding - you never know when a warning is going to come.

Stick me on the big list, obv.

how we doing. lovely mods?

heavycola wrote::cry:

hecter wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Frigidus wrote:which is rather surprising considering that he was spamming threads just earlier today.

I would like to say that I didn't even recieve a warning for that, which strengthens my belief that Clapper is one of us awesome NYBers.

And I've posted porn, flame outside of FW, spammed and just about broke every rule on the guidelines that I haven't received warnings for... It's really like getting pulled over for speeding - you never know when a warning is going to come.

Stick me on the big list, obv.

how we doing. lovely mods?

I do of course agree with this.. me and Mustard threw out the idea of an Adults only Forum (only to give disclaimer rights) where we could do much the same as you have said in the first post. Pimp was there too but he was causing trouble ; )

you can even get Mustards thoughts on the idea in his absence : Light Moderation.. bloody stupid how we can't talk freely!


Regardless of this you'll get absolutely f*ck all out of the mods for about 3 weeks and then it will be a 'no' anyway .. heheh what a jolly prick i am !

The site is deathly silent ... something is afoot! I reckon it is revving-up to telling us that the New Classic is keeping the Gameplay but is now to be based around a map of Birmingham Alabama City Centre, to avoid copyright infringement. ... there will be some lovely fall-out to come i am sure.

Birmingham, AL is a wonderful place. I'm just saying that, I've only been, like, twice, and I usually try to avoid people.

Neoteny wrote:Birmingham, AL is a wonderful place. I'm just saying that, I've only been, like, twice, and I usually try to avoid people.

hah! well panic over then Neo! I love the idea .. sold to the goat in the orange tunic!

jonesthecurl wrote:WHAT DO WE WANT?

LESS LOCKS!

Here, here! Buff mages while your at it!

signed sealed and delivered i think the mods have no right to tell us what they can lock here. at least in this foarm. They should be allowed to move things here but they should be allowed to lock things in other forms. BUT MODS PLEASE LEAVE US IN THE NOT YET PANNED ALONE!!!!! thank you

I agree. Not that this will do anything for anybody, but I agree.

I totally agree with HC, hecter, etc.

How about forum that is designated strictly as "modless"? I'm curious to see what develops in a forum that is designated like that....

Signed

Oh and that has been rejected. Though that's the wrong word: dismissed by twill without listening to what we had to say

Weren't there other sites created so you all could self-moderate?

"None of the Above" was one I think....and others followed.

What happened to them? Were they failures?

Doesn't your track record give you some indication to the level of your ability to determine what is best for a discussion forum?



Hey, I really like this general idea that Conquer Club has to listen to votes by its members, though.

Maybe we could vote on the pay structure....I think that instead of paying $25 for a premium membership, Conquer Club should pay us $50 each to become premium members. Because if the majority votes for it, it must be right. Right?

TheProwler wrote:Weren't there other sites created so you all could self-moderate?

"None of the Above" was one I think....and others followed.

What happened to them? Were they failures?

Doesn't your track record give you some indication to the level of your ability to determine what is best for a discussion forum?

My track record of prowler pwnage? I'd say it was a very pertinent life skill.
I do take your point, actually. Anyway these threads never work, or even apparently merit a response from them upstairs. There will be another one along in a few months. It's all part of the great circle of life.

hecter wrote:If you'll notice I have over 17'000 posts. That's a LOT. Of course if you sift through all my posts you'll find things that you shouldn't, but the worst stuff would probably be in the earlier posts... But that isn't really what the OP is about, it's the fact that the mods are trying to force their rules on it when the majority (as shown by the mere two people on the "no" list) of people are asking them to please not to. Meanwhile, when modding is asked for, nobody of authority steps in. As it was put, the moderation is horribly inconsistent.

Ok, again, this whole thing is really pointless and dumb. And I submit hecter's post as proof of my allegation. What you want is less modding in the NYB. BUT! There is already very, very little modding in here. In fact, we only have 1 official off-topics mod.

What I could see you argueing for is more consistancy in the site's modderating... but you're not. Compare us to GD and we are a fricking post-apocolypse wasteland as far as the rules go. It's like we're the wild west and there's only one sherriff. Do any of you ever even frequent the GD? I doubt it, because it is on lock-down all the time.

it's a good point actually; there is little modding in here, other than the odd .. 'keep on topic guys' .. and there are a few threads with no determinable subject matter; perhaps we could use 'Mini Not yet banned' thread, as it was used in the first instance?
Changing the Subject title heading, within the thread each time we wish to meander around the sublime and tinker with the silly. That was a good thread.

hehe i know that is much less fun than a revolution and i certainly won;t be taking my own advice but it is food for thought.. or at least a Rivita for the briefest of contemplations.

I don't see what you're going to achieve with this.
I've only ever recieved one warning, for posting in the French forum in English. Which was silly.
But it's really not difficult to follow the guidelines.

Minister Masket wrote:I don't see what you're going to achieve with this.
I've only ever recieved one warning, for posting in the French forum in English. Which was silly.
But it's really not difficult to follow the guidelines.

the sentiment is completely sound Minister. It just asks for the ability to live in completely organic threads; unbridled by the dark shadow of one dimensional Topic title adherence.
All it asks for is that the movement of verse is not stilted by over-regulation.

Juan_Bottom wrote:What I could see you argueing for is more consistancy in the site's modderating... but you're not.

No, we're arguing that the moderators should mod for us instead of against us. If the community at large does not disapprove of something, why should it not be allowed?

jiminski wrote:All it asks for is that the movement of verse is not stilted by over-regulation.

And the point has been made that it is not stilted by over-regulation very often.

Nothings perfect and nobody's perfect. Heck, even I have a few regrets. So there will be some mistakes. Sometimes a mod will flex his or her muscles inappropriately or in an inconsistent manner.

The trick here (and in life), is to not be an excessive complainer. Sometimes, people in authority make bad decisions and you will recognize these bad decisions. And sometimes, in more extreme cases, there are times to act and rebel or protest. But I don't think this forum is mismanaged enough to warrant such a strong protest.

Also, the problem with such a strong, public protest, is that the management is forced into a defensive position. That is humane nature and that is especially true when someone is in authority. They have the power. You don't want to work against the power. You want to work with the power.

Lets face it. The mods do a decent job. And it is mostly a thankless job. Do they make mistakes? Sure. Who doesn't? But if the community at large isn't going to be "big" enough to forgive and/or be understanding of the mistakes, then I don't think the mods are going to be accommodating when listening to complaints or requests.

I'd like to comment on a thought that has been conveyed in several of the posts in this thread. It is the idea that Conquer Club somehow owes us this Forum to enjoy as we "the majority" sees fit. This expression of the feeling of entitlement is humourous to observe. The way I see it is that Conquer Club provides these forums as a courtesy. To be able to publicly talk about the game is a great idea. But this forum in particular is meant to be a place to talk about "Off-topics". They certainly do not owe us this forum. Stir up enough controversy and I would not be surprised to see the management drop this forum altogether.

When you have a lot of whiny children who won't play together nicely, take away the toys and send them all home.

TheProwler wrote:I'd like to comment on a thought that has been conveyed in several of the posts in this thread. It is the idea that Conquer Club somehow owes us this Forum to enjoy as we "the majority" sees fit. This expression of the feeling of entitlement is humourous to observe. The way I see it is that Conquer Club provides these forums as a courtesy. To be able to publicly talk about the game is a great idea. But this forum in particular is meant to be a place to talk about "Off-topics". They certainly do not owe us this forum. Stir up enough controversy and I would not be surprised to see the management drop this forum altogether.

This argument has always seemed so strange to me. Making a parallel to real life we be like saying the government can do whatever it wants because, hey, we don't own the country. If we don't like it, get out. Not the soundest logic. One might say, "But Frigidus, we came here of our own volition. It's not like we were forced into this." So, does that mean that the immigrant to this theoretical country doesn't matter because they weren't there in the first place? Should they not rock the boat and leave their ideas and opinions back home? Hardly. Another argument might go something like, "But Frigidus, the owners of this site don't have to run this site. They're doing us a favor just by not deleting the forum and being done with it!" Sorry, but I don't tend to see why I should be eternally grateful to the guys making a ridiculous amount of money off a website they made for fun just because I frequent their forum.

The bottom line of my point is that sure, they can make my forum experience less enjoyable and treat me like I don't matter, but does this mean that we should just say "they're within their rights to be douche bags, let them be"? Certainly not.

TheProwler wrote:

jiminski wrote:All it asks for is that the movement of verse is not stilted by over-regulation.

And the point has been made that it is not stilted by over-regulation very often.

Nothings perfect and nobody's perfect. Heck, even I have a few regrets. So there will be some mistakes. Sometimes a mod will flex his or her muscles inappropriately or in an inconsistent manner.

The trick here (and in life), is to not be an excessive complainer. Sometimes, people in authority make bad decisions and you will recognize these bad decisions. And sometimes, in more extreme cases, there are times to act and rebel or protest. But I don't think this forum is mismanaged enough to warrant such a strong protest.

Also, the problem with such a strong, public protest, is that the management is forced into a defensive position. That is humane nature and that is especially true when someone is in authority. They have the power. You don't want to work against the power. You want to work with the power.

OK, it was perhaps a little strong, but i can't see any problem with the request itself. I would define this collection of freaks and geeks a community, and who would argue that communities shouldn't be permitted a degree of self-determination?

Anyway, like I said, it will be ignored. There'll be another one along in a few months' time.