For the dazed and confused (Spammy goodness encouraged)

Kipi · Post by **Kipi** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:03 am

dj_venom wrote:It's what I mentioned in the other thread, it's what I'll mention now. It's raised, members have shown their dislike. How could expect us to suddenly be all happy with it, now that it was done in the dark, without our knowledge?

On the other hand, what would have happened if this policy were discussed more openly before taking it to use? I believe that most would have been against of it, and what would have been th reactions if and when it would have been taken in to use anyway?

I've trusted Buck's and mods' judgement before, and still do that, since I don't think this new policy is so big deal after all. And if it does help the moderators, then it's okay to me.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:18 am

Xandax wrote:And thinking rational for a moment would conclude that not knowing the facts, one should not jump to conclusion.

So, don't post if you don't know anything, eh? Wow, that would have solved so many problems.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:22 am

Ravager wrote:So, don't post if you don't know anything, eh? Wow, that would have solved so many problems.

Where did I say not to post?

I said one should not jump to conclusions when not knowing the facts. And yeah - *that* would indeed sovle problems

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:24 am

I was paraphrasing, Xan.

Except, of course...even if you do know the facts and they don't tally with your facts...they're simply sidetracked.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:30 am

Ravager wrote:I was paraphrasing, Xan.
<snip>

Which is not a nice thing to do, when debating something that some people find rather emotional. Then it will attribute wrong opinions and statements to people who've never said them. Thus resulting in many of the misconceptions, we've seen lately regarding these issues.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:36 am

I'm hardly the only one to have done that, Xan. I'd be just as happy as you if everyone stopped using it, but I don't see that happening somehow.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:42 am

Ravager wrote:I'm hardly the only one to have done that, Xan. I'd be just as happy as you if everyone stopped using it, but I don't see that happening somehow.

Well - it has to stop somewhere. So might as well start here?
As I said - if people didn't have all the facts, then it is bad to jump to conclusions. Why is that a bad thing and why should that be paraphrased into saying "So, don't post if you don't know anything, eh? Wow, that would have solved so many problems. "?

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:08 am

Well, do the mods have all the facts?

Greg. · Post by **Greg.** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:17 am

Ravager wrote:Well, do the mods have all the facts?

But, dear Rav, does anyone, ever, have all the facts?

Can I ask when Lestat was banned? More importantly, will I get an answer?

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:18 am

Exactly!

From me, yeah.

It was last night. Uhh...2am or sometime around then.

Greg. · Post by **Greg.** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:24 am

Ravager wrote:It was last night. Uhh...2am or sometime around then.

Was Lestat a mod?

Gah! i tried to go on Nexus and ML's sites, but it didn't work - the site crashes IE for me...

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:24 am

Ravager wrote:Well, do the mods have all the facts?

Which facts are you asking if "we have"?
If it is a fact that this is not anti-spam decision, then yes.
If it is a fact that we belive it will help with moderating SYM, then yes.
If it is a fact that people post untrue information in regard of the former two, in attempts to target moderators, then yes.
Is it a fact that people have posted irrelevant untrue information in attempt to target moderators, then yes.

So - in light of this decision of limiting post count to 1.500 in a thread. Which "facts" do you speak off?

Masa · Post by **Masa** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:31 am

Somehow I just don't like the word witch-hunt... I'd prefer something like the act of seeking and persecuting any perceived enemy(or in this case a mod) when the search is conducted using extreme measures and with little regard to actual guilt or innocence.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:34 am

Masa wrote:Somehow I just don't like the word witch-hunt... I'd prefer something like the act of seeking and persecuting any perceived enemy when the search is conducted using extreme measures and with little regard to actual guilt or innocence.

Not that I at all disagree.
It is a nasty word and I prefere your longer version, but hey .... I only got a certain amount of words allowed in a post

Greg. · Post by **Greg.** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Rav.

[url="www.ravager.net"]It's back!!![/url]

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:40 am

The other one isn't though...the one in the uniform and all that.

Xandax wrote:Which facts are you asking if "we have"?
If it is a fact that this is not anti-spam decision, then yes.
If it is a fact that we belive it will help with moderating SYM, then yes.
If it is a fact that people post untrue information in regard of the former two, in attempts to target moderators, then yes.
Is it a fact that people have posted irrelevant untrue information in attempt to target moderators, then yes.

So - in light of this decision of limiting post count to 1.500 in a thread. Which "facts" do you speak off?

Well, no, I meant which facts do I...or you (or anyone else for that matter) need before we post some sort of conclusion?

Masa · Post by **Masa** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:46 am

Maybe we shouldn't post conclusions at all...

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:55 am

Ravager wrote:The other one isn't though...the one in the uniform and all that.

Well, no, I meant which facts do I...or you (or anyone else for that matter) need before we post some sort of conclusion?

The two first facts would be good before people go on about some kind of "anti-spam" motive for the 1.500 post limit.

slade · Post by **slade** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:27 am

Xandax wrote: "anti-spam" motive for the 1.500 post limit.

I dont think of it like an anti spam movement, I think of it as a way of organising spam. Pretty much your putting things into chapters instead of one big book.Which makes things easier to read, but somewhere along the lines it was said that it would help new members join topics, I dont think it would considering that most of the people here who spam dont just spam in one place but in multiply threads...when given the chance, therefore your never really splitting up this group and the inside jokes will still remain. Could you imagine 5 small versions of the SS, even though they have different titles there pretty much the same...

this new rule may work for moderators but not for members apparantly, this rule was to be a possitive move for GB but all it has done is brought some of us grief.

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:32 am

slade wrote:but somewhere along the lines it was said that it would help new members join topics

That is not the reason why it was introduced though. That is just the view of individual moderators such as myself.