December 19, 2007 at 10:45 am #354572
Why would anyone do that???
No one would, brianfast is just mudslinging.
Pronunciation Key – [muhd-sling-ing]
an attempt to discredit one’s competitor, opponent, etc., by malicious or scandalous attacks.
Aside from malicious attacks, it’s also considered mudslinging to discredit someone by manipulation, and by making ridiculously overdramatic and sarcastic statements, so that people reading the thread pick up a general “bad vibe” about the candidate.
What candidates need to learn is that brickfilms.com voters are informed, and talk to each other — and candidates should run on their own merits, rather than the downfalls of others. (That just shows how poorly suited they are for the position, that they’ve decided the only chance they have is to discredit their opponents.)
-Trill, Election CommissionerDecember 19, 2007 at 10:48 am #354573
I’ve been thinking about harsher policies when it comes to arguing that is plain disrespectful to others.December 19, 2007 at 11:29 am #354582
“Night Owl” wrote:
I think that there are quite a few threads that don’t specifically against the rules, but clutter up the forums. We’ve been having a lot of threads in General Brickfilming lately that were pretty much copies of older ones. Of course people pointed that out, but others (newbies in particular) kept posting in them, so we had around 4 or 5 threads where one would have sufficed. This could have been solved by deleting the thread, sending a PM to the author, and moving their post to the proper thread (eg. from the now deleted “my set” thread to the “Let Me See Your Set” thread).
Of course I would alter the rules and guidelines to point that out.
You can point it out ’til your red in the face, but how exactly are you going to enforce that? Even disagreeing with the multiple threads (that usually already have multiple answers in multiple other places) how to you intend to regulate them? How is this really an enforcable policy? Because, even if they’re annoying – punishing the members for them is only going to earn brickfilms.com more of a reputation for being unhelpful. (Which, we had for a while when threads like that weren’t even getting answered, but sarcastically replied to and sent to resources.)
Do you see any way to get around this?
Could it maybe more of a priority issue? Is it more important to make the forums better for the senior members, or the new members, in your opinion?
I’m not trying to mean at all, sorry if I have come off as agressive. (I don’t know if I have, but I do that unintentionally sometimes.)
You have my full support, I’m just curious as to how you plan to implement this particular assertion.
-TrillDecember 19, 2007 at 3:08 pm #354632
Adding a clause to the rules concerning unnecessary threads (eg. “Moderators reserve the right to lock unnecessary threads and relocate the post to a relevant thread.”) would serve the purpose of making it part of the official policy of the (expanded) moderator team. It would be more of a formality, really.
Because, even if they’re annoying – punishing the members for them is only going to earn brickfilms.com more of a reputation for being unhelpful.
I don’t see it as punishing. New members make that mistake often, and I feel my solution is a nice way to rectify it, and one that benefits both the new member (their post is put in a relevant thread, so they join the discussion) and the rest of the community (less clutter).
Is it more important to make the forums better for the senior members, or the new members, in your opinion?
I feel that making it easier for new members will simultaneously make it better for senior members.December 19, 2007 at 3:12 pm #354634
Night Owl, I like your approach. You have my support.
-DaveDecember 20, 2007 at 4:40 pm #354997
Can you give me specific details as of what you consider unnecessary?December 25, 2007 at 12:03 am #356257
That’s all very well, but where do the puppies stand on this one?
I feel that your party is free and liberal,
treetahDecember 25, 2007 at 5:09 am #356323
I can understand how even a slightly experienced member wouldn’t see something as punishing like what you’ve mentioned, Night Owl, but if I were just coming to the website and got even a “nice” PM saying that something I had written had been moved and/or deleted, I would get a little ticked off. Maybe you should implement your policy only after repeated offenses. Or maybe redirect them to the Getting Started forum you plan to enact the first time, then send them a warning PM on the second time around. Because in most cases for halfway intelligent people that are just new (compared to n00bs that are overly stubborn or just plain stupid), one warning is enough to set someone straight, and doing it in the nicest way possible seems to be the best option in my opinion.December 25, 2007 at 5:54 pm #356416
I like your idea of a “Getting Started” forum. I personally feel that it would be a good idea to retain the current F.A.Q. In either case it sounds like you would do well to coordinate w/ the MOI.
Reading through White’s thread I liked the idea of having a mod or two from each time zone. I certainly think this would make the chat a bit nicer at times.
All this said you seem like the right guy for the job.December 26, 2007 at 6:37 pm #356634
That would be a lot of mods.
The topic ‘WINTER '08 – Night Owl for Minister of Discussion’ is closed to new replies.