Do Royals need a power decrease?

[_____]

I didn't say immediate suspension. What I said was this: And I'll break it down into steps so that even the simplest mind can understand. If there is an argument, this is what I would do if I was a mod:

1. I'd make a chatroom.

2. I'd tell the two people in the center of the argument to join the chatroom.

3. If one of the people refuses profusely to join the chatroom, I would suspend that person for not at least making the attempt to solve their differences.

4. When both parties have joined, I'd allow each of them to make their case, and then have the other person respond to it in a constructive way. We me there as a mod, they would have to keep themselves cool headed.

5. Then I would try to reach a settlement between the two parties. It may not make things between them perfectly fine, but I couldn't hurt. At the very least it would be more constructive than simply closing the topic and letting the problem become even worse.

It's NOT stopping the problem, it's HIDING it. It doesn't solve anything. It's not a moderator's job to babysit, but it is their job to keep the place free of flamming. If the best way to stop that is by stepping in and taking some time to SOLVE the problem, then they should do it.

1.) And register a completly useless channel so that two people who hate each other can hate each other a little less?

2.) PMs can do the same thing.

3.) So, not wanting to argue = suspension? Whether you like it or not, Lyle, not everyone gives a damn about what or not an issue is resolved.

4.) You're threatening to suspend someone for disagreeing with each other?

5.) Once again, and I'll say this in big and bold letters so even you can read it, it is not a moderator's job to babysit members of the forums. BTW, even if you think it's more constructive, it's also extremely flawed and overly long.

And by closing topics, you can stop flaming. If the 2 parties want to duke it out in query or PMs, who are the moderators to say otherwise? If you tried to solve every problem that came up, your head would explode from stress. It's like one person trying to fix the world; it doesn't happen.

[TheEnd]

I didn't say immediate suspension. What I said was this: And I'll break it down into steps so that even the simplest mind can understand. If there is an argument, this is what I would do if I was a mod:

1. I'd make a chatroom.

2. I'd tell the two people in the center of the argument to join the chatroom.

3. If one of the people refuses profusely to join the chatroom, I would suspend that person for not at least making the attempt to solve their differences.

4. When both parties have joined, I'd allow each of them to make their case, and then have the other person respond to it in a constructive way. We me there as a mod, they would have to keep themselves cool headed.

5. Then I would try to reach a settlement between the two parties. It may not make things between them perfectly fine, but I couldn't hurt. At the very least it would be more constructive than simply closing the topic and letting the problem become even worse.

It's NOT stopping the problem, it's HIDING it. It doesn't solve anything. It's not a moderator's job to babysit, but it is their job to keep the place free of flamming. If the best way to stop that is by stepping in and taking some time to SOLVE the problem, then they should do it.

Forum moderation doesn't work that way.

[Mufasa]

1.) And register a completly useless channel so that two people who hate each other can hate each other a little less?

2.) PMs can do the same thing.

3.) So, not wanting to argue = suspension? Whether you like it or not, Lyle, not everyone gives a damn about what or not an issue is resolved.

4.) You're threatening to suspend someone for disagreeing with each other?

5.) Once again, and I'll say this in big and bold letters so even you can read it, it is not a moderator's job to babysit members of the forums. BTW, even if you think it's more constructive, it's also extremely flawed and overly long.

And by closing topics, you can stop flaming. If the 2 parties want to duke it out in query or PMs, who are the moderators to say otherwise? If you tried to solve every problem that came up, your head would explode from stress. It's like one person trying to fix the world; it doesn't happen.

1. Cause there aren't any other useless channels?<_<

2. No it can't. Don't you get it you idiot? Pms, can't have a three way discussion. You can send two people the same message, but it doesn't allow for a discussion of the problem between all three people at the same time.

3. If they are causing enough of a problem to warrant a topic being closed, then the mods should step in to fix the problem.

4. Who said anything about suspending anyone here? If they can talk things out, then you can fix the problem.

5. And I'll say it again: It's not a moderator's job to babysit, but it is their job to keep the place free of flamming. If the best way to stop that is by stepping in and taking some time to SOLVE the problem, then they should do it.

Then the mods should be made of tougher shit. They aren't supposed to be wimpy hippies that will overlook a problem if it's happening. They should DO something about a problem.

Forum moderation doesn't work that way.

Then maybe it needs to change.

[TheEnd]

Then maybe it needs to change.

Except that it doesn't.

It's just wasted effort. A moderator isn't a teacher or parent; his job is to keep forum peace, not to start grand efforts to make people come to understand their differences/the error of their ways and make them better individuals for life or anything.

You clearly overrate the power of persuasion and dialogue, and propose a time-consuming, impractical and innefective way of dealing with issues while forgetting that being a moderator in a forum like this one is a voluntary job with no monetary rewards whatsoever.

Then the mods should be made of tougher shit. They aren't supposed to be wimpy hippies that will overlook a problem if it's happening. They should DO something about a problem.

You know, it isn't the moderation's job to make you grow up.

[_____]

1. Cause there aren't any other useless channels?<_<

2. No it can't. Don't you get it you idiot? Pms, can't have a three way discussion. You can send two people the same message, but it doesn't allow for a discussion of the problem between all three people at the same time.

3. If they are causing enough of a problem to warrant a topic being closed, then the mods should step in to fix the problem.

4. Who said anything about suspending anyone here? If they can talk things out, then you can fix the problem.

5. And I'll say it again: It's not a moderator's job to babysit, but it is their job to keep the place free of flamming. If the best way to stop that is by stepping in and taking some time to SOLVE the problem, then they should do it.

Then the mods should be made of tougher shit. They aren't supposed to be wimpy hippies that will overlook a problem if it's happening. They should DO something about a problem.

1.) Doesn't mean you have to add to it.

2.) You can PM twice, duh. The only complaint you could have against PMs would be that the IRC is faster, but then you have QUERY, which is basically PMs on chat.

3.) No, they shouldn't. If they start causing problems repeatedly, then warnings and suspensions should be given out. Not group therapy.

4.) And you'll waste a bunch of time on something stupid. GREAT transfer!

5.) Luckily for my side of the arguement, it's not the best way to stop it. It's the longer and less effective way to solve the problem.

"Wimpy hippies" would do what you're saying and waste valuable time trying to solve problems that don't need to be solved. Problems resolve themselves, and NOT EVERYBODY GETS ALONG. Should a mod step in right now and cause us to sit through drivel so we'll stop arguing? No! That's fucking stupid!

[Mufasa]

Anyway, I've made my point. It's not a mod's job to babysit, however, it is their job to keep the forums from getting to the point of flamming. I've made my case, I don't see any reason why my idea wouldn't work, but even if it didn't, I know that mindlessly closing topics will not stop a problem, and will only result in more and more problems in the future.

Perhaps someone on the staff will read all this and make an accurate assumption of this, and maybe things will change for the better no matter what option they take.

But at this point I think the staff will only look at this topic to close it. Which seems to happen to all the topics that result in a discussion like this. Oh! And look, we're having this discussion again, even though those topics were closed before. :o Could this prove my point? I think it does. <_<

Now excuse me while I go back to blowing the heads of Ghouls and Super Mutants in Fallout 3.

[_____]

Anyway, I've made my point. It's not a mod's job to babysit, however, it is their job to keep the forums from getting to the point of flamming. I've made my case, I don't see any reason why my idea wouldn't work, but even if it didn't, I know that mindlessly closing topics will not stop a problem, and will only result in more and more problems in the future.

Perhaps someone on the staff will read all this and make an accurate assumption of this, and maybe things will change for the better no matter what option they take.

But at this point I think the staff will only look at this topic to close it. Which seems to happen to all the topics that result in a discussion like this. Oh! And look, we're having this discussion again, even though those topics were closed before. :o Could this prove my point? I think it does. <_<

Can't think of any counterarguements? By closing topics, flaming is stopped. Members can no longer post in them, so *gasp* they can't flame. If they start flaming in multiple threads, they're obviously in need of a warn/suspension, not peer leadership. It would reach the same goal as what we're doing now, except in a long, drawn-out, and less effective way, considering how most people don't, you know, give a damn about what the other side has to say, and will just claim that they are correct. Also, that system of "mindlessly closing topics" seems to have worked on, oh, I don't know, THE WHOLE INTERNET.

Accurate = Agreeing with you? That's pretty self-centered.

Because you sparked an arguement and, despite 3 other people arguing your idea into the ground, you decided that we were all wrong and that you were right. You also thought that calling me an idiot and willfully stupid was an awesome way for me to agree with you, and we see how well that turned out! YOU'RE the one who will be the cause for this topic to eventually be closed. It proves nothing but the fact that you're just pulling shit out of your ass at the moment. BTW, YOU brought up this old arguement. It's not like it was spawned because of some unresolved problem. YOU just don't know when to shut your mouth and when you're WRONG.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Asaello

[Mufasa]

Can't think of any counterarguements? By closing topics, flaming is stopped. Members can no longer post in them, so *gasp* they can't flame. If they start flaming in multiple threads, they're obviously in need of a warn/suspension, not peer leadership. It would reach the same goal as what we're doing now, except in a long, drawn-out, and less effective way, considering how most people don't, you know, give a damn about what the other side has to say, and will just claim that they are correct. Also, that system of "mindlessly closing topics" seems to have worked on, oh, I don't know, THE WHOLE INTERNET.

Accurate = Agreeing with you? That's pretty self-centered.

Because you sparked an arguement and, despite 3 other people arguing your idea into the ground, you decided that we were all wrong and that you were right. You also thought that calling me an idiot and willfully stupid was an awesome way for me to agree with you, and we see how well that turned out! YOU'RE the one who will be the cause for this topic to eventually be closed. It proves nothing but the fact that you're just pulling shit out of your ass at the moment. BTW, YOU brought up this old arguement. It's not like it was spawned because of some unresolved problem. YOU just don't know when to shut your mouth and when you're WRONG.

Did I say that? No. I trust the mods and Admins to make an informed descision. I've made my case. You've made yours. That's all I have to say about this, cause anything else I would say would be repeating myself, or remarking on how empty your arguments are.

[_____]

Did I say that? No. I trust the mods and Admins to make an informed descision. I've made my case. You've made yours. That's all I have to say about this, cause anything else I would say would be repeating myself, or remarking on how empty your arguments are.

Do the latter then, and make your arguement hold more water. I've shot through yours in my posts, mainly. At least make an attempt.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Lolz. I agree with Ninji pretty much. If you really think there's a problem with someone just harass them until they stop. Tried and true method. :P You don't need a big discussion like that. I find most things work themselves out in the end. Although I don't really believe in Locking threads in most situations...