General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
So, we've new mods and owners around here. 2. How should we deal with personal attacks, flames, etc. First do a Ming-like "CHILL" If it continues, then ban the people due to the severity of the personal attacks & flames. Also taking into account past history. For a minor flame or personal attack, 24 hours. For a major one, a week. Maybe institute a third strike rule, where you may get an extra week for your 3rd infraction. 3. How should we deal with thread jacking Let it go. OT moderators are not supposed to guide the discussion. 4. How should we deal with user-spam (not commercial spam) Let it go. Unless the attempt is to destroy any conversation that is going on among a few posters (but that is usually hard if the conversation is in depth) 5. Is there anything in these forums you miss? What kinda debates / topics aren't possible here but would be good for the OTF, what can we do to bring them here? There were more in depth discussions and topics, but I don't think the administration can do anything to bring them in. Perhaps the idea for a more moderated OT which is more harsh on thread jacking and spam and a less moderated OT (on another board they refer to it as "The Pit") should be contemplated. 6. Are there reasons for you to post or not post in this forum I post for the people. 7. Do you like the idea of a 'closed threads' forum, or do you prefer to keep closed threads in the forum, or do you prefer them to be deleted completely? The closed thread forum was a great idea, frankly ![]() 8. What can in general be done to make the OTF a better place Clear moderation rules and try to avoid appearances of favoritism. An Off Topic and a Pit can be a good idea as well. 9. What should remain to keep the OTF a good place? Try being evenhandled and listen to people. Don't close threads for being spammy without reading the good points in the OP, for instance. 10. Anything else? Nope ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
I personally don't like the idea of two OTs, once you get below a certain number of posts per day then the community grows weaker. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
You get major brownie points for making this thread, so thanks.
1. A place to hang out with the community when not here for the Civ gaming specifically. More practically, something to keep people around between Civ releases. 2. Just be consistent. Something that is banable for one poster should be banable for another, regardless of "past". I'd be fine with outlawing direct PERSONAL attacks such as comments pertaining to family and significant others, or other things beyond the person's control with the notable exception of making observations that are apparent through the discourse of the thread. For instance, if somebody gets a basic math problem wrong in a thread, it should not be an offense to observe they have terrible math skills. ![]() The other thing to keep in mind is to judge the context and the intent of the comments. For instance, comments exchanged between myself and Wiglaf are in jest and should not be taken seriously -- it's not by either of us, it shouldn't be by the admins either. 3. I don't think the admins should act in response to threadjacking unless requested to by the thread's originator or its major participants. Frequently threads meander in topic as they peter out, and I think that's fine...but if the originator disagrees they could request a thread split to make another thread with the tangent. 4. I think it's fine so long as it's not disruptive to a specific thread. For instance, spamming a thread discussing the best Main Battle Tank is not really acceptable, but having a thread that starts on a silly premise means in the context, spam is fine. This should be a thread-level distinction, not a forum-level one. Some threads will be "serious internet business", others can be silly community games or discussion. 5. I wasn't aware this was an administrative issue. 6. Reasons to post: the posters. Reasons not to post: Meddling administrators. The purpose of the OTF is to be fun and engaging and sometimes informative, and sometimes overzealous moderation sucks the fun right out of it (eg, CFC). 7. Closed threads should just exist in the forum they were closed in. It is imperative an administrator provide a detailed explanation as to why a thread is closed when it is closed, at the last post. 8. Consistent moderation combined with a "hands-off" approach. The OTF is not the on-topic forum and should not be moderated as such. It is mostly free-wheeling and for it to be successful it needs to maintain that kind of environment. Unless there is an egregious, direct personal attack or inappropriate material (eg, pornography), it should basically be permitted. 9. The environment should remain the same. The OTF is a playpen for posters between Civ releases and who are not playing Civ currently. If you come down hard on it, people will leave. 10. If you decide that the OTF has become too playful for whatever reason, the worst thing you could do is just demand change in how people behave here. If anything, you could create a "Serious Business" OTF forum where you can strictly moderate it and have academic/paint-drying debates in a serious/professional form while you can have the "Old-school" OTF forum with a little bit of everything. It's the mixture of the two, in my view, that keeps this place worth visiting. Whatever you do, don't kill the OTF as we know it. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
1. What is the purpose of the OTF forum
To provide a forum where all us old civvers can have some fun, chat and enjoy each other's company. 2. How should we deal with personal attacks, flames, etc. I like the three strike rule. Warn with a chill, then another warning that further attacks will result in banning. First offense, sit for a day or so. If a poster continually repeatedly has personal attacks, extend this as necessary, until they get the hint. 3. How should we deal with thread jacking Post a thread listing the Hijacker of the month, as appointed by the moderators. ![]() 4. How should we deal with user-spam (not commercial spam) Same. Have an award for spammer of the month, the poster who has the highest posts/useful information ratio as appointed by the moderators. 5. Is there anything in these forums you miss? What kinda debates / topics aren't possible here but would be good for the OTF, what can we do to bring them here? I'd like the forum to be more mellow, less personal attacks, more fun. 6. Are there reasons for you to post or not post in this forum Same as guynemer, it's my online home. I like it here. 7. Do you like the idea of a 'closed threads' forum, or do you prefer to keep closed threads in the forum, or do you prefer them to be deleted completely? Interesting idea. Insufficient data to make a conclusion. 8. What can in general be done to make the OTF a better place Consistant moderation, but otherwise, I think you are off to a good start. 9. What should remain to keep the OTF a good place? You haven't really changed much. 10. Anything else? Make sure your mods have their banning rods activated before releasing them into the wild. |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
1. To facilitate a community of posters, many of whom come here from the OnT, but not all. This assumes that more site traffic is positive and that keeping people around for purposes other than being a civ site has merit.
2. Personal attacks should be discouraged when mild and stopped when more harsh. 3. The posters themselves should be allowed to determine the course of threads. The only guidance they should need would be the thread starter asking for help if his/her threads are jacked (eg. anneshem and the eternal question of the origins of hundu civilisation). 4. Be easy going. Posters will go where they want to. People like LS and joncha make forums a more intersting place. Only proviso being, again, trashing other peoples' threads should be stopped. 5. Not really, except that we know that certain subjects may not have very productive discussions since they've been done to death and the same old people will have the same old arguments again, and again. 6. I post here because it is like my on-line home. I sometimes avoid posting to avoid conflicts which have been allowed to turn very nasty in the past. 7. I'm positively inclined towards the closed-threads forum, but my jury is still out. If it turns into a penile competition it might not be such a great idea. 8a. Try to cut down on dog-piling and harsh personal attacks. I'm not sure how you eliminate dog-piling. A flat-Earther would probably not find a kind hearing on a forum with a lot of people familiar with the physical sciences. The tone should be important. 8b. I'd appreciate it if posts don't get deleted. It is disconcerting to come into a thread and parts of the discussion are missing. There is a solution for posters who require a lot of editing of their posts. 9. Most everything except the excessive nastiness. 10. Thanks for caring enough to make the effort. Kudos for being able to admit a mistake. Being open to suggestions is another positive sign. A bit more later. |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
I don't think that's what the admins want to here from an OTF mod Jon... I read all of his posts pretending he is Steven Wright: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Wright |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
I think that I can merge posts from two different people. I generally don't like hard and fast rules. Principles and intelligent oversight are better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
Regarding on-topic content.
Jeroen and me team up tomorrow evening (in real world) to speak about that, make plans for the homepage, etc. We certainly are aware that that's the main issue! poly should be ready for civ5, if it ever comes. That doesn't mean that we must be ready as a community as well when thousands of new members may join. |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
So, we've new mods and owners around here. |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|