Somebody give this man some rep.

i tried to but it said that i needed to spread it around so i gave it to you instead.

Why dont you email that to unixmad. It does no good to post it here.

You are a forum administrator, you are empowered to do a lot of the things that I outlined in my huge tl;dr essay if you really thought they were necessary. I don't feel the need to e-mail someone who doesn't even respond to his employees that much.

No, I cannot. That is what you people do not seem to understand, and I am really getting tired of repeating myself

I'm sure you have the ability to edit the FAQ as they're basic administrative rights on vBulletin. If you really wanted to do something like that you could have always asked Stefan. It is under your jurisdiction in how you moderate. Sure Unixmad might have told you to enforce the rules, but I bet he told the same to Konidias, Kaimetsu, Tyhm, but they didn't enforce them as hard. You do have the ability to influence the positivity of the members on the forum, yet the focus is heavily on what people are doing wrong. You changed the NGRT yourself, though it was a pretty bad idea in doing so. Previous to that you enforced a "no forum games" rule, and it looked like it was getting better, promoting more general discussions.

Overall you have the ability to request such things and put in the effort, yet the administrators of this forum just seem to focus on deleting content, rather than promoting a good community. I believe that this forum could be great. I believe even with these current forum rules and these current forum staff we could have a better community, but we can't without change, and change isn't something that the users should be complaining to get all of the time. Unixmad believes that the forums are good as they are, why would he care for suggestions that require more effort? Even if I e-mailed him nothing would change, but you're in a position where you can request areas to change.. but you don't for some reason. There are some things that I outlined that you can't do, but there's a lot that you can do.

While I don't see any incredible difference between the forum structure you've suggested, and the existing forum structure -- indeed, the only differences at all are the playerworld-specific forums, which aren't really all that useful, considering the existence of privately-owned forums, I do agree that the forum theme is not very reflective of Graal. This isn't entirely surprising, considering that there aren't any actual designers on the Graal team, to my knowledge. I think a little investment in a design firm, like vBSkins.com, might go a long way. Redesigning the GraalOnline.com site wouldn't be a bad decision, either.

I don't particularly disagree, here. However, I'm not sure if the rules are all that gray to begin with. Indeed, most seem pretty black and white. For example:

Have a question about a deleted post, thread, or edited post? Forum PM the moderator that did it, and do NOT derail the thread asking why, or discussing it. This makes members have to sift through a derailed thread just to see replies to what the thread is about.

Rules about flaming, or "provok[ing] another user into an ‘insultive/flame argument’ ", as the rules put it, aren't very clear and concise. This is where moderator discretion comes in, and the main problem between moderators and those who dislike them comes in to play, too (not so much with the rule itself, but the principle of moderator discretion). What needs to be understood, though, is that we are all relatively immature. When left to our own devices, without moderation, we are led inexorably towards fighting. Again, I bring up the Valikorlian forums (a simple google search of "valikorlia forums" will lead you to them), which are a prime example of what happens when a group of teenagers get together on the internet without any moderation.

The argument that rules ought to simply be a guideline is a hopeful one, but effective rules are rules in which there are no gray areas at all. In fact, I doubt that having lenient rules would help this forum at all. In return, we'd have moderators that must use their prerogative when moderating, and I just have this feeling that those that dislike the moderators now would have even more to complain about.

Perhaps I have a bias, because I am the one that sifts through posts and edits or deletes them, following really my own set of acceptable behavior, since there are zero rules that users are made to follow. I have my weekly meal of angry PMs and insulting responses from users that feel that I'm a corrupt, power-hungry guy that's out to fight them at every turn.

I don't find it all that amusing. In fact, I think it's the biggest problem this forum has. I personally think that the problem with Graal is not a lack of updates, or anything on Stefan or Unixmad's end, but that the community, as a whole, is very negative. This can't be said about other online games I have played. Well, it can to an extent, but not nearly as far as Graal can claim.

I also don't believe that trolls are just a fact that forums have to deal with. Banning is a rather effective weapon against people like that.

This is where I believe you and the fellow group of anti-establishment forum-goers are getting it completely wrong. You place the burden of change on a single party: anybody but yourselves. I'd use an analogy, but there's somebody here that doesn't really understand them, so I'll have to say this plainly. You can't honestly expect change from one person, without offering up something in return. Offering up the possibility that you'll stop being mean isn't going to cut it.

The fact is, no matter how horrible the moderators may be (and I use moderators as a general term for the people that run the forums), they are the ones in charge. They are the people that decide whether or not your demands are met. This isn't a democracy, and you must concede first to their will, before they will consider giving you what you ask for.

It's not a fact that anybody likes, but it's the way it works everywhere. What users lack the most is diplomacy. You'd be amazed as to what can get done if people asked for things in a diplomatic manner, rather than in a barbaric manner.

Because I don't particularly think that Unixmad, Stefan, et al. are disregarding how users feel about the forums. I'm guessing that they are simply regarding it as loud banter from a group of angry protesters that don't really seem to understand how protesting works at all.

I also don't particularly believe that the rules in place are good rules at all, or that the moderation team has done a fantastic job with public relations. What I do believe is that any approach to changing the way things are should be a proactive approach, and sitting around complaining is the farthest thing from proactive.

I do support voting in at least one supermoderator, who would work with Unixmad, Darlene, and Sam to form some kind of compromise between what you guys want, and what Unixmad wants. If Unixmad et al. think that things can continue going the way they have been, without any kind of repercussions, then they are sadly mistaken, because there is a problem here. If you guys think that you can go doing things the way you have been doing things, you are just as equally mistaken. Unixmad will not get everything he wants. You guys will not get everything you want.

A compromise hinges on the prerequisite that, as I said before, you guys submit to Unixmad's will first, and prove that you can handle yourself in a mature matter, and then start making these requests in a diplomatic manner.

You're just nitpicking with walls of text.

you can't say all that about what he said, he put down what the people said about the forums, if you want to tell them otherwise, don't disagree with his results, disagree with the people who gave him the results.

See, the thing is, when it's something you disagree with, it's just nitpicking. When it's something you agree with, we might as well put the author on a pedestal. Give me a break. Can we at least try to act like the adults we say we are?

Yet, if you actually read what I wrote, you'd have noticed that I didn't categorically disagree with what Rufus wrote. I'm going to go ahead and guess that you see me a pro-moderator crusader, out to fight the anti-establishment users whenever the chance arises. Which couldn't be farther from the truth.

uh, i never said or implied that anywhere?

Guys, we need change we can believe in!

Oh, but you certainly have implied it. Almost every person that's conversed with me in this thread has implied that I agree with the policies here. Why else would they keep arguing about the policies, when I'm only arguing about the approach in regards to changing those policies?

Is this a self-nomination? :cool:

Still just nitpicking.

I'm pretty sure the "mature" thing to do isn't excessively express your beliefs online over something petty like activity on forums.

Not calling you immature, but you aren't some beacon of maturity yourself.

I'm thoroughly convinced that you have no idea what nit-picking actually is, and are simply responding the way you are because you neither have any useful to contribute nor can you think of any legitimate response.

Anyways, unless Rufus says something completely different from what he has been saying, the only thing left for me to do is to repeat myself. Not that this hasn't been entertaining, but I'd rather not do that.

Nothing in this thread is useful, as Darlene won't do anything, and Unix/Stefan don't care

And I'm convinced you just can't stand someone disagreeing with you and have to constantly reply to everything to try and get the last word in. Really, all these rants? Do they matter? Are they contributing to this thread? You're just as useless and pathetic as all of my posts in here. What was that? Big bad PoJo disagreed with you? Did mean old Rufus prove you wrong? Who cares? If you were half the mature beast you're pretending to be, you'd have let it go several pages ago. But no, you're one of those "proud" people who can't stand having their ego (read: masculinity) ripped from them. One little nay-say, and here you are, on some tangent that isn't contributing at all.

Really, all those things Rufus pointed out with the poll, and you just had to try and make yourself look superior. Wow, aren't you cool? It isn't just here. I recall you tried to convince me that children little over 1 year old have a very developed vocabulary. That's not true, nor is it important. But you're so full of yourself that you just have to be a bigger man by typing out a bunch of words. Because big arguments are right arguments? Everyone who types one-liners that you don't like are stupid and useless? Or are your huge posts just compensating for something? You're not better than Elizabeth. You have something to say, even though no one cares and it's unimportant, but to you, your word is from God himself. What is this a trait among everyone on Val? Just because your words are important on some game means you're cool here?

You don't have anything to say, but you know what? You'll reply to this. You've already posted in this thread, you've already tried to look cool and involved. You're not about let someone say something about you, you just need to get the last word you in. You just have to smarter just because you know how to string some words together. Just because you have something to say doesn't mean you're somebody.



You're pathetic. Go ahead, reply. You can't do anything else. You just need to have the last say-so.

Ok, let me repeat myself one more time. I CANT do anything about it. In fact, I have asked to be dropped back down to Supermoderators job because that is really all I am, and I am tired of telling people that I dont have the rights to do what an Administrator is suppose to do, because some of you cannot look past the title to look at the words I am typing.

Well... you're like the only visible leader for the forums we see :p

(if Unix posted with more regularity I think we would be asking him, not you =P)

I'm aware of that

Not that I'm one to suggest bending over backwards, but are you able to take a screenshot of what rights you do have? That way, the technical arguments would have no foundations.

My rights include what unixmad gives me permission to do when I ask him. That's why I shouldn't have the Admin title.

I wonder why Unix doesn't interact with us. Didn't he used to a little?

Yes. I was told that he is really busy with Graal related stuff right now.

You mean telling Stefan to do more work on Graal while he watches and commands sans talent?

(p.s. I didn't put anything in your quote this time babe. Is this better? yes [ ] no [ ] )

Voting for moderators isn't a very good idea. Moderating is not a popularity contest and should not be treated as such.

edit: Darlene, nothing in the rules state that people can't take you, or anyone else, out of context.

This forum is not a democratic constitution, we have rule and users have accept these rules in the moment they post here.
I enforce these rules in the sense Unixmad told me to do.
As long as I get not a different insturction from the Graal Administration, I moderate it as I did in the past. There are lots of users using the forums without having or making any trouble. There are also some users thinking they don't need to be decent and respectful. These users stand to lose their right to post here. Plain and simple :)

it's just an idea.

What is it with you moderator jerks not understanding how respect works?

I would think voting for moderators would be done by having a list of candidates that are qualified for the position, then voting on the candidates. You don't believe that is a good idea?
Don't be so immature, it's common sense no to do crap like that, it just makes you look like the drive-by media.

There are some things you shouldn't do that should not have to be written in the rules.

Just so some of you know, there was a significant push of players to place Tig as the manager of Kingdoms. Tig already had a large portion of the player base when he took over, because it had already been talked about before he took the position and he was the candidate the players supported.

But Sam is right, this isn't a democratic institution. Graal is a business, about should be treated as such. Busy or not, we deserve to be addressed by Unix. I mean, even Stefan makes time to deliver comments here. I am not expecting to have casual conversations, but I would rather he address these issues as the Administrator.

That really has nothing to do with not taking your customer's opinions into consideration.

Depends on how it happens, I suppose. I think it would be nice to have the admins take our opinion into consideration, but I'm not sure if it would be best to have it be a final word.

I'm not being immature. I don't agree with it either but it doesn't make it against the rules so I see no reason to delete it. I would normally agree, but the mods tend to love preaching that the rules must be followed by their word with no exceptions.

Funny, I've heard that too many times. Customer opinion doesn't seem to matter, and that's why the game is in the shape it is today. :)

Earn respect? Flaming the moderators sure doesn't help ;)

"Customer opinion" and "customer rule" are two different ideas altogether. No customer has the right to demand anything ("customer rule") of a business, unless they own stock in it. The business might take in to consideration customer opinion, but it doesn't have to, especially if the opinion is that the people that "operate the business" need to get the hell out.

It would probably be smart to take in to consideration customer opinion on the actual game, though. Just a thought. :noob:

If you purposefully (not saying you did) take someone's words out of context then I really have no sympathy if your post(s) get deleted. We get enough of that **** from the drive-by media.

That is exactly what he said, the rest of your post was unnecessary. :)

It's not about sympathy, it's about the rules. Like I said, normally I'd agree, but given how strictly they enforce the rules because they take them so seriously word by word, I don't have any sympathy when someone is a jerk because it's not against the rules. They can't sit and say they have to follow the rules strictly, and then completely ignore the rules and delete what they want because they don't like it.

There are these things called unwritten rules. Taking what people say out of context to use their words in a negative way is one of those things that you shouldn't have to be told not to do.

I understand that. But in an environment where the moderators insist by following the rules down to the word, there are no unwritten rules. It's not fair. Unwritten rules are fit for a more relaxed setting where moderation is done with common sense rather than strictly enforced laws.