I'll say it now: I didn't delete that post, and I suspect it was only because of an association made with ATG's bitter remarks.burnzz wrote:
i get it newbie, and if my posts going to be deleted for saying "i miss Kmarion" i haven't learned if
Okay, why did you delete this?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
@lowing: I closed it for awhile so people could simmer down.
@burnzz: There's entire chains of flame battles deleted in this thread by more than one mod, and I guarantee that if one of us sat down for an hour to elaborately AWM everything, people would gripe because they're getting AWM'd, and/or that he isn't catching other infractions somewhere else.
--------
I'd say the most reported thing on DST are personal attacks. We could start to address this thread's title by reining in our collective pissiness.
edit: partial from a deleted post -Argue, fine, but try not to use insults to win. It'd take a hundred mods to keep track of everything right now.yeah I have long been baffled by those that enter a debate forum and insist we all stop arguing.
You think people don't know the site or staff well enough to know what goes on here? You are wrong.ATG on this page wrote:
And, wasn't NOoby kinda selected because he knows the tech section well?
DST is a pit of vipers and kmarion was the only one that knew how to mod it.
Ask Liq how he feels about modding DST.
kmarions and FM's tat was public, so I am not exactly divuldging any secret mod stuff, but I would say kmarion has other places to hang where there is not so much back stabbing and infighting amongst the staff.
I ask again, what was so bad about my post and who deleted it?
And, wasn't NOoby kinda selected because he knows the tech section well?
DST is a pit of vipers and kmarion was the only one that knew how to mod it.
And, wasn't NOoby kinda selected because he knows the tech section well?
DST is a pit of vipers and kmarion was the only one that knew how to mod it.
And, wasn't NOoby kinda selected because he knows the tech section well?
DST is a pit of vipers and kmarion was the only one that knew how to mod it.
And, wasn't NOoby kinda selected because he knows the tech section well?
DST is a pit of vipers and kmarion was the only one that knew how to mod it.
And, wasn't NOoby kinda selected because he knows the tech section well?
DST is a pit of vipers and kmarion was the only one that knew how to mod it.
I didn't delete it, sweetheart.
I didn't say you did sister.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I didn't delete it, sweetheart.
ATG wrote:
And, wasn't NOoby kinda selected because he knows the tech section well?
DST is a pit of vipers and kmarion was the only one that knew how to mod it and FM drove him away.
Well now.ATG wrote:
I didn't say you did sister.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I didn't delete it, sweetheart.
I'll forward your request to the one who did. Shall we kiss and make up, or can I expect another chain of pissed off pm's like last time?I ask again, what was so bad about my post and who deleted it?
why did you post that 6 timesATG wrote:
ATG wrote:
And, wasn't NOoby kinda selected because he knows the tech section well?
DST is a pit of vipers and kmarion was the only one that knew how to mod it and FM drove him away.
Only thing bf2s members hate more than each other: the mods.
alright so where did kmar go? textbook-mod? conspiracy-mormon-nut? any answers or just more... rabble?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Concerning the OP:
I am more than willing to meet the section halfway. The problem is I don't feel the section is willing to meet me there - or at the very least as a group you guys don't fully realize why I'm saying what I'm saying when it comes to more specific rules, codes of conduct, etc. For the most part people would like a generally more "productive" DST section, by which I mean a section where posts are at the very least on topic and extreme personal attacks are filtered out, but it's not so stringent that you can't do something so mild as call someone an idiot when they say something idiotic. I get that. The problem is I don't think you understand how fine a line that is to walk - and then you want all the mods to walk that tightrope?
The rules chuy has set down for this site are as close to perfect as I think anyone could possibly get. All of the basic principles have been laid down in excellent fashion, all seeming to derive from the same general rule - don't be a dick. I can appreciate the general simplicity of the rules, and I think they are a great introduction to the style of the forums we're aiming for here for someone new. The problem is they are not highly specific - there is a LOT of room for interpretation. In general that is fine, I don't see any problems moderating the other forums with the general rules set down. But when considering DST, things get more dicey. The line between content and flaming becomes blurred. What is considered positive content and what is intentional and/or unintentional trolling is very subjective. If you want more even moderating, the first thing we need to do is establish a more easily identified baseline, a code of conduct. Not new rules for the section, an extension of the general rules so members and moderators understand how the section wants itself to be run.
So the problem is when people say "stick to the rules and edit posts to say 'deleted for flaming' or something to that effect", the problem is twofold. First of all, delete is there for a reason. I am not entirely convinced that editing instead of deleting would not provoke further issues in the thread. At the same time I think there are other ways of addressing the core issue that sentiment is derived from, an insufficient bad posts deleted/bad posts that should be deleted ratio and I have been trying to pursue those options. The other problem is as I have alluded to, sticking to the rules is easier said than done. That is what we are trying to do as it is. Yes all the mods are human, we make mistakes, but I don't think anyone comes on saying "I'm going to fuck with the section today, regardless of my interpretation of the rules". The issue is largely we have marginally but significantly different interpretations of the rules a lot of the time. The only way of attempting to fix that issue so far as I can see is trying to further define the rules, particularly with respect to the ongoing problems we have (flaming, zero-content OPs, etc.).
Unless some of you want to productively help me reach these goals or convince me to help you with other, more worthy endeavors I don't know how much I can do.
@ ATG you know zip about my relationship with Kmarion
I am more than willing to meet the section halfway. The problem is I don't feel the section is willing to meet me there - or at the very least as a group you guys don't fully realize why I'm saying what I'm saying when it comes to more specific rules, codes of conduct, etc. For the most part people would like a generally more "productive" DST section, by which I mean a section where posts are at the very least on topic and extreme personal attacks are filtered out, but it's not so stringent that you can't do something so mild as call someone an idiot when they say something idiotic. I get that. The problem is I don't think you understand how fine a line that is to walk - and then you want all the mods to walk that tightrope?
The rules chuy has set down for this site are as close to perfect as I think anyone could possibly get. All of the basic principles have been laid down in excellent fashion, all seeming to derive from the same general rule - don't be a dick. I can appreciate the general simplicity of the rules, and I think they are a great introduction to the style of the forums we're aiming for here for someone new. The problem is they are not highly specific - there is a LOT of room for interpretation. In general that is fine, I don't see any problems moderating the other forums with the general rules set down. But when considering DST, things get more dicey. The line between content and flaming becomes blurred. What is considered positive content and what is intentional and/or unintentional trolling is very subjective. If you want more even moderating, the first thing we need to do is establish a more easily identified baseline, a code of conduct. Not new rules for the section, an extension of the general rules so members and moderators understand how the section wants itself to be run.
So the problem is when people say "stick to the rules and edit posts to say 'deleted for flaming' or something to that effect", the problem is twofold. First of all, delete is there for a reason. I am not entirely convinced that editing instead of deleting would not provoke further issues in the thread. At the same time I think there are other ways of addressing the core issue that sentiment is derived from, an insufficient bad posts deleted/bad posts that should be deleted ratio and I have been trying to pursue those options. The other problem is as I have alluded to, sticking to the rules is easier said than done. That is what we are trying to do as it is. Yes all the mods are human, we make mistakes, but I don't think anyone comes on saying "I'm going to fuck with the section today, regardless of my interpretation of the rules". The issue is largely we have marginally but significantly different interpretations of the rules a lot of the time. The only way of attempting to fix that issue so far as I can see is trying to further define the rules, particularly with respect to the ongoing problems we have (flaming, zero-content OPs, etc.).
Unless some of you want to productively help me reach these goals or convince me to help you with other, more worthy endeavors I don't know how much I can do.
@ ATG you know zip about my relationship with Kmarion
flaming methinks you take your moderator 'role' a little too seriously with such a thought-out reply - if the members aren't really that fussed, why are you? you seem to answer your own questions in your statement. you sound a little like justice scalia in your talk of 'rules', haha.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
i miss Kmarion.
still no one answered my question... where the fuck did he go, and for what / why / who / when.
did i miss something?
did i miss something?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
He made a couple posts in DST a few days ago, but he really hasn't been posting since about a week ago.
@Uzi I dunno what happened to him...burnzz wrote:
i miss Kmarion.
Last edited by TravisC555 (2010-07-07 15:18:06)
burnzz wrote:
i miss Kmarion.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Kmar left because FM is a dick.
quote=the forum
we miss kmarion.
fm you know i know more than anyone else.
we miss kmarion.
fm you know i know more than anyone else.
Right, I'll try to be more of a moderator who doesn't give a fuck.Uzique wrote:
flaming methinks you take your moderator 'role' a little too seriously with such a thought-out reply - if the members aren't really that fussed, why are you? you seem to answer your own questions in your statement. you sound a little like justice scalia in your talk of 'rules', haha.
See what I mean about the tight rope? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's not (entirely) from a lack of effort.
Also Kmarion has just been relatively inactive without much cause given. Like a lot of other people have done on this site. And he certainly has more posts than those other people.
edit: no ATG, you don't, you only saw what happened on the public and private forums
jeez you people take this way too seriously... and I've only read this page!
ƒ³
My posts were deleted, including posts that were directly relevant to the OP. I did not "flame" anyone, it simply was something one or all of you mods didn't want to hear. That is censorship.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Concerning the OP:
I am more than willing to meet the section halfway. The problem is I don't feel the section is willing to meet me there - or at the very least as a group you guys don't fully realize why I'm saying what I'm saying when it comes to more specific rules, codes of conduct, etc. For the most part people would like a generally more "productive" DST section, by which I mean a section where posts are at the very least on topic and extreme personal attacks are filtered out, but it's not so stringent that you can't do something so mild as call someone an idiot when they say something idiotic. I get that. The problem is I don't think you understand how fine a line that is to walk - and then you want all the mods to walk that tightrope?
The rules chuy has set down for this site are as close to perfect as I think anyone could possibly get. All of the basic principles have been laid down in excellent fashion, all seeming to derive from the same general rule - don't be a dick. I can appreciate the general simplicity of the rules, and I think they are a great introduction to the style of the forums we're aiming for here for someone new. The problem is they are not highly specific - there is a LOT of room for interpretation. In general that is fine, I don't see any problems moderating the other forums with the general rules set down. But when considering DST, things get more dicey. The line between content and flaming becomes blurred. What is considered positive content and what is intentional and/or unintentional trolling is very subjective. If you want more even moderating, the first thing we need to do is establish a more easily identified baseline, a code of conduct. Not new rules for the section, an extension of the general rules so members and moderators understand how the section wants itself to be run.
So the problem is when people say "stick to the rules and edit posts to say 'deleted for flaming' or something to that effect", the problem is twofold. First of all, delete is there for a reason. I am not entirely convinced that editing instead of deleting would not provoke further issues in the thread. At the same time I think there are other ways of addressing the core issue that sentiment is derived from, an insufficient bad posts deleted/bad posts that should be deleted ratio and I have been trying to pursue those options. The other problem is as I have alluded to, sticking to the rules is easier said than done. That is what we are trying to do as it is. Yes all the mods are human, we make mistakes, but I don't think anyone comes on saying "I'm going to fuck with the section today, regardless of my interpretation of the rules". The issue is largely we have marginally but significantly different interpretations of the rules a lot of the time. The only way of attempting to fix that issue so far as I can see is trying to further define the rules, particularly with respect to the ongoing problems we have (flaming, zero-content OPs, etc.).
Unless some of you want to productively help me reach these goals or convince me to help you with other, more worthy endeavors I don't know how much I can do.
@ ATG you know zip about my relationship with Kmarion
I can not think of any personality in this forum more bashed and flamed than I. Yet I have reported none of them. (Well 1, against a mod but that was to prove a point.) I do not need anyone censoring my bashers, or "flamers". Which is good since you do not censor "lowing bashing" anyway . The only time you step in is when I actually fight back. Then and only then has it gone too far, and I get thumped. I rarely engage in that sort of behavior, so the only reason left to censor me is personal bias against my opinions or like stated, when I actually bite back on the rare occasion.. This is bias, and is the biggest part of the problem in this forum. You want a standard, yet you seem to be exempt from that standard and it pisses people off.
There's also spam, should be obvious.burnzz wrote:
i get it newbie, and if my posts going to be deleted for saying "i miss Kmarion" i haven't learned if i
A) broke a forum rule
B) personal attack
C) pornographic or vulgar post
D) threatend or was threatening another member
E) being racist
so if the post is deleted, how am i to know which behavior i am to correct?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-07 17:10:46)
Fuck Israel
Many members are apparently fussed about DST becoming a spam pit.Uzique wrote:
flaming methinks you take your moderator 'role' a little too seriously with such a thought-out reply - if the members aren't really that fussed, why are you? you seem to answer your own questions in your statement. you sound a little like justice scalia in your talk of 'rules', haha.
Fuck Israel
Did you not read what I said? Do you not understand that I recognize the problem and outlined ways of addressing it?lowing wrote:
My posts were deleted, including posts that were directly relevant to the OP. I did not "flame" anyone, it simply was something one or all of you mods didn't want to hear. That is censorship.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Concerning the OP:
I am more than willing to meet the section halfway. The problem is I don't feel the section is willing to meet me there - or at the very least as a group you guys don't fully realize why I'm saying what I'm saying when it comes to more specific rules, codes of conduct, etc. For the most part people would like a generally more "productive" DST section, by which I mean a section where posts are at the very least on topic and extreme personal attacks are filtered out, but it's not so stringent that you can't do something so mild as call someone an idiot when they say something idiotic. I get that. The problem is I don't think you understand how fine a line that is to walk - and then you want all the mods to walk that tightrope?
The rules chuy has set down for this site are as close to perfect as I think anyone could possibly get. All of the basic principles have been laid down in excellent fashion, all seeming to derive from the same general rule - don't be a dick. I can appreciate the general simplicity of the rules, and I think they are a great introduction to the style of the forums we're aiming for here for someone new. The problem is they are not highly specific - there is a LOT of room for interpretation. In general that is fine, I don't see any problems moderating the other forums with the general rules set down. But when considering DST, things get more dicey. The line between content and flaming becomes blurred. What is considered positive content and what is intentional and/or unintentional trolling is very subjective. If you want more even moderating, the first thing we need to do is establish a more easily identified baseline, a code of conduct. Not new rules for the section, an extension of the general rules so members and moderators understand how the section wants itself to be run.
So the problem is when people say "stick to the rules and edit posts to say 'deleted for flaming' or something to that effect", the problem is twofold. First of all, delete is there for a reason. I am not entirely convinced that editing instead of deleting would not provoke further issues in the thread. At the same time I think there are other ways of addressing the core issue that sentiment is derived from, an insufficient bad posts deleted/bad posts that should be deleted ratio and I have been trying to pursue those options. The other problem is as I have alluded to, sticking to the rules is easier said than done. That is what we are trying to do as it is. Yes all the mods are human, we make mistakes, but I don't think anyone comes on saying "I'm going to fuck with the section today, regardless of my interpretation of the rules". The issue is largely we have marginally but significantly different interpretations of the rules a lot of the time. The only way of attempting to fix that issue so far as I can see is trying to further define the rules, particularly with respect to the ongoing problems we have (flaming, zero-content OPs, etc.).
Unless some of you want to productively help me reach these goals or convince me to help you with other, more worthy endeavors I don't know how much I can do.
@ ATG you know zip about my relationship with Kmarion
I can not think of any personality in this forum more bashed and flamed than I. Yet I have reported none of them. (Well 1, against a mod but that was to prove a point.) I do not need anyone censoring my bashers, or "flamers". Which is good since you do not censor "lowing bashing" anyway . The only time you step in is when I actually fight back. Then and only then has it gone too far, and I get thumped. I rarely engage in that sort of behavior, so the only reason left to censor me is personal bias against my opinions or like stated, when I actually bite back on the rare occasion.. This is bias, and is the biggest part of the problem in this forum. You want a standard, yet you seem to be exempt from that standard and it pisses people off.
A big reason people get angry with you lowing is because you read everything as if they are against you. I can certainly appreciate the "I don't give a fuck what they say" attitude, but it is truly infuriating when you aggressively respond to people that are on your side, not because they think you need help, not because they like you, but because they hold the same viewpoints as you do. Learn to take what people say and appreciate it for what it is, then decide if you actually have something to disagree about.