Okay, the forum won't let me quote AlkarenHyralt's post because it's too big so I'll do it this way.
"As I said there should be a forum purely for spam where your post count doesn't raise if you post in there. Kinda like how Rumor Has It, is. This message board is not spam free. Everyone knows there is spam in almost every single form. But you may not see everything as spam while others do. Herein lies a problem. What counts as spam? Really what is considered spam is at a mod's descretion. Spam can not be stopped; it's just simply can't be done. Well, have an active message board without spam, unless you moderate every single post, and every single thread. But then, how can that message board truely be considered active? Everything is not in real time; it is whenever a mod or admin checks the post and decides it can be posted, and who knows when that might be?"
I don't agree. If people are so worried about post counts and wine and cry that people are spamming to get more posts, the solution is to hide post counts or REMOVE post counts. I AM 100% IN FAVOR OF REMOVING POST COUNTS
"One wonders if you know truely what flaming is? Flaming is not just petty arguing. It is a very crude form of insult others while at the same time arguing and trying to get your point across. There are better things than flaming though, as a friend of mine once told me....took me nearly half a year to understand what he meant...I understand now though. Anyway, there is a difference between arguement and flaming."
It can be a very fine line! Insulting and harassing is against the rules, those rules are enforced. It's that simple, the definition of flame is not the issue here.
"Merge, edit, delete, stick, unstick, all such things are tools; not solutions."
Yes it is, THESE are the tools that mods use. They are the only tools needed, other than rules to enforce.
"Part of having modship is keeping your forum in order, and rules are needed sometimes for such things. You have the ability to make rules. While there are very few rules to enforce right now, if any."
That may be, but not if my rules conflict with the ones Unixmad set into place. Which in the instances I've been giving examples of, it would.
"Actually, it would be the great Tolkien who said that, not Gandalf. Gandalf is a fictional character created by a writing genius."
Well if you want to get technical... :-p
"You say that threads should be given a chance even though they are offensive to some. Yet you criticize other mods for not using merge when there are more than one topic on the same subject. People have different opinions and as such may wish to express them in a different way than someone else might, so they create a new thread expressing their opinions there and so a new dicussion(sp) is formed. You would rather just throw such things together ignoring the fact that the topic may be about the same thing, but may also be different by discussing a different part of the same thing then others might. "
Nothing is so black and white, I never said I would throw all similar topics into one thread. But many of them may need to be in the same thread, it just depends. This is another example of a mod using his innate ability to use his power to the best ability (assuming he has such an ability heh) If not merge them, then what then? DELETE? I don't think that is the answer either. The topic at hand has seemed to be what threads should be deleted, and which should not. That is why I mentioned merge as an alternative to deleting.
"You should be able to do such a thing. All mods have that ability. Unless some of your extra privliages were removed."
I can not do it... sadly. It would help me a lot. I have never been able to do it (only to my own posts)
"Once again, you confuse me. You tell me not to take the forums so seriously, yet you claim to take your job *very* seriously, which in itself is the same thing as taking the forums very seriously."
Yes, I said "on the other hand..." which demonstrates my ability to see things from multiple angles
01-04-2002, 02:22 AM
Linear Mode
