do you like the forum split?

Unsure if I dislike the forum split or if I dislike change.

I love it !

I just ignore ot-srs almost entirely since it's full of boring threads.
So for me, it's like the mods just decided to cut back on modactions !

Even better, we have no post-count in ot-derp ! That means when i look at my post count i will see a number that increases very slowly, so i'll think that i procrastrinate less than i actually do !

I understand the reasoning behind it and it seems like a good idea in theory, but if the last two days are anything to go by the Civilum section will be pretty small. And how do you determine where to open your thread ?
I can already see people posting something in Civilum and then complain when a mod moves it to Taberna.
I think it would be just as well to relax rules across the board and only apply the strict standads to red diamond threads.I also dislike the pretentious latin titles. This is a fan-site to a pseudohistorical turn-based strategy game. No need to hammer it home.

The split itself can be actualy pretty good idea but I am not sure I like it along the lines it has been done...
I would imagine the split been done on serious OT for learning and exchange of knowledge for science, politics, philosophy, history etc. and some light version of OT where you could discuss stuff in more relaxed manner with primary purpose of having fun. That way we could drop off even the red diamond thingy and make everything nice and clear. Simplicity rules!!!

NO.

5chars

Yes for civilium poll thread, no for taberna poll thread.

:sad:It looks like the number of active threads has dropped.:sad:
:sad:I am not sure if there are less people posting but I suspect that people are starting to look elsewhere.:sad:
:sad:This will reduce the advertising income for CFC.:sad:
:sad:I don't know if it will reduce costs to offset the lost revenue but doubt it.:sad:

Too early to tell, but it could work. It was a drastic change anyway...

Too early to tell, but it could work. It was a drastic change anyway...

kind of like the French Revolution, mirite?

The forum split in and of itself is not of much importance to me. However, the negative reaction to the split has been too great, and so shifts my opinion against.

The forum split in and of itself is not of much importance to me. However, the negative reaction to the split has been too great, and so shifts my opinion against.
What's cracking me up is how everyone howls for change. Then a change is made (responding to criticism and trying to build a solution that addresses the criticism) and they just howl more.

I promise you there is NOTHING we could do that would make the howling stop, short of shooting the dogs.

Be careful what you wish for.

/maniacal laugh

No one has given a good reason for opposition other than I have to do 1 extra click to see all the threads. It is a great change IMO and thank you. It allows both factions of people to maintain discussion on this site in the manner they enjoy the most, what could be the problem with that. Sure there are other ways it could be done but that is always the case. I would have preferred the moding be just reduced to the level I see fit. But FT is that and why should I care about others having a place to discuss things in the manner they see fit.

I'm quite happy with the split. I had already pretty much checked out of OT because of the low signal-to-noise ratio. Now I can simply avoid the FT threads.

Like always, in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is.

lol @ moderators voting yes on this.

How did you think we'd vote? :confused:

No one has given a good reason for opposition other than I have to do 1 extra click to see all the threads. It is a great change IMO and thank you. It allows both factions of people to maintain discussion on this site in the manner they enjoy the most, what could be the problem with that. Sure there are other ways it could be done but that is always the case. I would have preferred the moding be just reduced to the level I see fit. But FT is that and why should I care about others having a place to discuss things in the manner they see fit.
Big fear for me is that eventually you could leach activity. Competing discussions on the same topic mean that neither discussion really is as active as it could be. Now at the moment it appears more likely FC will be a relatively dead zone and FT will act as off topic, but if this forum ever gains more support the splitting could start to occur. Personally Id rather have one big topic of discussion on an issue than two smaller topics with less opinions being shared but that's just me.

I thought that the serious forum was supposed to be just that, a spam/trolling- free forum. The other ot forum could be a less strictly run ot. I am pretty sure you can have any thread you want in the taberna forum, if you want a serious thread there (and do not mind the spam/trolling) you are free to have it there anyway.
The FC is just for people who see no value in the stupid trolling that made the unified ot a rather multifaceted mess, and sometimes even a sinister place to be on the web.

How did you think we'd vote? :confused:

with a maniacal grin on your faces full of wicked glee. :D

Big fear for me is that eventually you could leach activity. Competing discussions on the same topic mean that neither discussion really is as active as it could be. Now at the moment it appears more likely FC will be a relatively dead zone and FT will act as off topic, but if this forum ever gains more support the splitting could start to occur. Personally Id rather have one big topic of discussion on an issue than two smaller topics with less opinions being shared but that's just me.

Sure that is a fear. Give it time and see what happens. The alternative is to force people to converse in a style they don't care for and that could just generally drive people away. This type of thing has been tried before. There was once a move to sticky "serious" discussion threads at the top of OT. It did not get much action and died a natural death. RD as well was a nice try. look at least they are being responsive. Everyone should just calm down and give it a chance.

What's cracking me up is how everyone howls for change. Then a change is made (responding to criticism and trying to build a solution that addresses the criticism) and they just howl more.

Please don't misunderstand any of my howling. I don't yet have a judgment on the change except that the roll-out was unbelievably bad.

How did you think we'd vote? :confused:

Nobody in staff was opposed? Remember that poll next time you don't like being called a borg.

Resistance is futile.... you will be assimilated. :borg:

The moderators shouldn't be allowed to vote :(

As it is, I'm indifferent to the split. I already have 10 tabs open at any one time, what's one more. If they go through with the plan to unify the other subforums into these two, I can see how this might have been necessary. I would love to see that happen.

Sure that is a fear. Give it time and see what happens. The alternative is to force people to converse in a style they don't care for and that could just generally drive people away. This type of thing has been tried before. There was once a move to sticky "serious" discussion threads at the top of OT. It did not get much action and died a natural death. RD as well was a nice try. look at least they are being responsive. Everyone should just calm down and give it a chance.The red diamond idea made a lot more sense then this does iMO. I dont see why they didnt just strictly enforce the concept of a red diamond. Basically have red diamond threads run by FC rules and have the moderators spend effort on them and have non-red diamond threads run by FT rules and have moderators ignore everything but major infractions. I dont see why this required new forums.

Please don't misunderstand any of my howling. I don't yet have a judgment on the change except that the roll-out was unbelievably bad.
Sorry, I realize not every criticism or question is a howl. Especially not in your case! :)

Nobody in staff was opposed? Remember that poll next time you don't like being called a borg.
Hmmm... I think it would be more like, wanting to change, but not everyone would've picked this method, but there was a good consensus. There was definitely no one arguing to "leave as is".

As far as I can tell, the majority of the howling is not about the split itself, but rather the lack of PC on the other forum

As far as I can tell, the majority of the howling is not about the split itself, but rather the lack of PC on the other forum
yeah, that may be.

No. It was un-needed.

I do not care about post count, for what it's worth. Join dates are a much more fun way of determining elitism, anyway. :mischief:

So far I like the split per se, but there are a LOT of things about the way it was done that I dislike. I think the experiment should run for at least a month, and I think that moderators should be constantly tweaking it during that month, with regular, public reviews.

In no particular order (i.e. in the order they pop into my head):

1) The names are retarded, pretentious, and completely nondescript. They don't give me any information about whether I'm in a serious forum or a frivolous forum. Just... Ugh...
2) There should be a warning on the OT-SR forum, at the top of each thread, to warn people that moderation will be harsher here
3) OT should have been left alone, not locked or archived. I cannot see any valid reason for locking it and moving threads one by one to a new forum, instead of just renaming OT to "OT-JR" and adding a new "OT-SR" forum, with the dozen or so "srsbzns" threads moved into there.
4) OT-JR should have post counts. I cannot see any valid reason for not having post counts on any part of the forum. Post count measures how many posts you have made, simple as that.
5) It should not have been done on April Fool's Day... My god, who's stupid idea was that?! You couldn't have waited until 2nd April to announce it?! What the hell were you thinking! More fool me for assuming a level of common sense that was clearly absent.

There are probably more things that I will think about later.

Nobody in staff was opposed? Remember that poll next time you don't like being called a borg.

I was not really for it, but I don't care enough to vote in this poll ^^.

So far I like the split per se, but there are a LOT of things about the way it was done that I dislike. I think the experiment should run for at least a month, and I think that moderators should be constantly tweaking it during that month, with regular, public reviews.

In no particular order (i.e. in the order they pop into my head):

1) The names are retarded, pretentious, and completely nondescript. They don't give me any information about whether
2) There should be a warning on the OT-SR forum, at the top of each thread, to warn people that moderation will be harsher here
3) OT should have been left alone, not locked or archived. I cannot see any valid reason for locking it and moving threads one by one to a new forum, instead of just renaming OT to "OT-JR" and adding a new "OT-SR" forum, with the dozen or so "srsbzns" threads moved into there.
4) OT-JR should have post counts. I cannot see any valid reason for not having post counts on any part of the forum. Post count measures how many posts you have made, simple as that.
5) It should not have been done on April Fool's Day... My god, who's stupid idea was that?! You couldn't have waited until 2nd April to announce it?! What the hell were you thinking! More fool me for assuming a level of common sense that was clearly absent.

There are probably more things that I will think about later.

I was going to make basically this post but I got frustrated by the reception I expect.

I don't think it's unreasonable to concede postcount in OT:SPAM if OT:SRSBZNS stays the same as OT:OG. OT:SRSBZNS should be merged back into OT:OG so they can just dump pc from the new forum. (Which shouldn't've had threads other than serial chat type threads moved to it.) I have a huge problem with locking 60k threads.

The April 1 thing was a goddamn horrible idea and whoever pulled the trigger on it should apologize to the community for the unfunny jerking around. Seriously.

I'm going to adopt the controversial and extreme position of giving it a try, reserving judgement and seeing how I like it after a few weeks . Obviously I will have to endure great pain in the coming weeks as I face this trial .

I'm going to adopt the controversial and extreme position of giving it a try, reserving judgement and seeing how I like it after a few weeks . Obviously I will have to endure great pain in the coming weeks as I face this trial .

Counter revolutionist!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Personally, the way that it should have gone was simply create a subforum in Off-Topic that is like FC and leave OT the way it is instead of going through the hassle of closing the main OT forum and creating two separate forums and moving threads around. I'd think the controversial aspect of a post-countless forum in FT has riffled the majority of posters.

Perhaps the intention was to not give the impression that FT was the old OT, something which would have happened in that case.
Personally i do not care, but i can understand the site administration being careful with such things.

Lets not forget the OT is not the main part of this site. It is just an averagely busy subforum. It hardly has 5/3 times the traffic the civIII C&C subforum has, and that is a 10+year old game.

I have a huge problem with locking 60k threads.

Hey mods (&/admins), isn't it possible to set the permissions such that old OT is open to post in existing threads but not post new threads? We could do that, then when a thread gets bumped just move it over to a "live" forum. That means less fuss for us getting a mod to move a thread in order to bump it, and no particular mod has to worry about opening a particular thread on request. Just keep an eye out for bumps (easy) and pick the appropriate new forum. (I'd suggest defaulting to OT:SRSBZNS unless it's a super crappy thread, to minimize postcount loss.)

This would solve my biggest ongoing grievance with the new system. Please do it.

Yeah, Lucy, I think we should've left the original OT and renamed it as one of the new OT and then made a 2nd OT.

Unfortunately, my time/availability is a bit spotty and limited atm, so I was more on the periphery of the change.

I will wait and see, but my initial reaction is negative.

I actually have no problem with this decision. I think making the two separate subforums was a good idea. The things I don't like are the

a.) decision to release it on April 1
b.) the condescending, rude, even dickish way in which many of the moderators are handling the whole thing. Come on, guys, you know this forum is full of change-averse posters who will be confused and angry about the whole thing, the least you could do is not be such asshats about it. This to me is the worst part of this whole ordeal. You all should be ashamed to call yourselves moderators.
c.) The lack of PC for OT-JR.

a) will be fixed with time. b) and c) can be very easily remedied; do that and I couldn't be happier.

b.) the condescending, rude, even dickish way in which many of the moderators are handling the whole thing. Come on, guys, you know this forum is full of change-averse posters who will be confused and angry about the whole thing, the least you could do is not be such asshats about it. This to me is the worst part of this whole ordeal. You all should be ashamed to call yourselves moderators.

Be fair, it's not all, not by a long shot. But I agree that some have crossed a line.

Nonono.

The transfer of old OT threads into the two new forums doesn't seem completely consistent with their alleged purposes; when I checked in on Sunday I didn't see a real difference between the given threads' subjects, so for now I remain confused as to where a given thread might be. The seeming arbitrariness of the thread split as it stands now (it may make more sense as new threads replace the old ones) makes me think this is a prolonged April Fool's prank, but if other forums (science and technology) are moved back into Civilium the split may grow on me.

Complete failure to address any problems with and the needed merging of Science & Tech, A&E, etc... and it's still likely this is an April fools holdover, so no.

Ideally this new change fosters an atmosphere where we all vote with our feet. If you prefer a OT-JR atmosphere, then you will hang out more in the FT/OT-JR/Glass Cage of Emotion (my proposal for the new forum's name). If a lot of you prefer that, then a lot of you will hang out there more and not really in the FC. The FC will be populated, in turn, with folks who want a more detail oriented or focused or serious discussion, or whatever. An "RD" level. If that forum ends up withering away and dying, so be it. The FT becomes the new OT, eventually. It's ultimately up to us all, which is why I endorsed this and think it is ultimately something worth trying. I hope this also ultimately serves two camps: ones who want an elevated level of discussion free of stealth trolling and overt strawmanning and being generally obtuse and/or ruining a discussion with quote wars, or what have you, and ones who want a more free wheeling, everyone for themselves level of discussion where "debate" is as much about entertaining oneself as it is about educating or arguing or whatever.

I also endorsed the roll-out on April 1st. Honestly, I thought it would be funny as a reverse not-prank mind blowing prank that would make future pranks that much better as you will forever not know if we are serious or not. Haha. :blush: Apparently it did not go over well with some of you, and I am sorry about that, but ultimately, this is a website we visit to procrastinate/hang out with internet friends/rant/waste time on, so in the big picture, hopefully that does not get in the way of what we are trying to ultimately accomplish, which is make this little not-so-important slice of our lives a better place for everyone.

tl;dr, we are trying new things, and trying to make the forums better. That is always our goal. We are listening and trying to incorporate a diverse set of opinions. Let's give this a try and see how it evolves. Ultimately, it may just be that we end up with OT becoming FT, by way of a natural evolution. But no need to close the FC, if it remains in use and if people still want to go there.:cool:

What's cracking me up is how everyone howls for change. Then a change is made (responding to criticism and trying to build a solution that addresses the criticism) and they just howl more.

I promise you there is NOTHING we could do that would make the howling stop, short of shooting the dogs.

Be careful what you wish for.

/maniacal laugh

Was there a huge cry for anything like what was done? I thought the RD idea was good and I don't remember this kind of response to it.

Was there a huge cry for anything like what was done? I thought the RD idea was good and I don't remember this kind of response to it.

The problem was there was no change in moderating standards for the non-RD threads. Essentially the response to the complaint of overmoderation by some was to keep the baseline moderation and add a supermoderated class to that. Not exactly responsive.

Where's the neutral option?

http://i.imgur.com/uWH7v.png

The problem was there was no change in moderating standards for the non-RD threads. Essentially the response to the complaint of overmoderation by some was to keep the baseline moderation and add a supermoderated class to that. Not exactly responsive.

No wonder there is an outcry--that wasn't the fix we were looking for!

I've never seen a very universal "we want this fix" from a large contingent of posters; the only thing I saw a lot of was a push for a sandbox type forum with more hands-off moderating that allowed a more free-wheeling discussion, which is what FT or whatever it is eventually called is trying to provide.

I thought Ap1 roll out was funny. Oh well its a question of taste. And I like the split but I do agree with this:

b.) the condescending, rude, even dickish way in which many of the moderators are handling the whole thing. Come on, guys, you know this forum is full of change-averse posters who will be confused and angry about the whole thing, the least you could do is not be such asshats about it. This to me is the worst part of this whole ordeal. You all should be ashamed to call yourselves moderators.
c.) The lack of PC for OT-JR.

c. I don't care about but since people want it I see no reason they shouldn;t have it why try to create more animosity. If spam becomes a problem (Big problem that is) then remove the PC.

b. is rather true and unfortunate.

There seems to be a clear bias in the roll out in favor of FC.

eg.

Off-topic forum for people wanting civil discussion of the important topics.

vs.

The Internet. Serious Business. A more lightly-moderated forum for your off-topic discussions, not really designed for serious debate.


So the basic tone is. OK you annoying, unserious, air-heads you can have your forum but with no PC, and of course you still complain.

Why not just.

Strictly moderated forum for more in-depth off-topic discussion.

and

Lightly-moderated forum for off-topic discussion.


I see many srs discussions in FT. You think people can;t have a srs discussion w/o a moderator? Amazingly I've had them all my life.

Hey mods (&/admins), isn't it possible to set the permissions such that old OT is open to post in existing threads but not post new threads? We could do that, then when a thread gets bumped just move it over to a "live" forum. That means less fuss for us getting a mod to move a thread in order to bump it, and no particular mod has to worry about opening a particular thread on request. Just keep an eye out for bumps (easy) and pick the appropriate new forum. (I'd suggest defaulting to OT:SRSBZNS unless it's a super crappy thread, to minimize postcount loss.)

This would solve my biggest ongoing grievance with the new system. Please do it.

The idea is to shift OT into a new direction. Yes, a split one, but new directions none the less. By closing the old forum we're trying to move away from what OT was from the moderator's viewpoint - a place that was a chore to moderate and often brought a lot of mod burnout. We realize there are a lot of valid discussion worthy threads still in OT, which is why we're asking that you report the posts and we'll gladly move them to the FC or FT (and I do agree, those are horrible names) where the discussion can continue. But just splitting a new subforum off to try and shove some of the OT stuff would not really be a new paradigm, it's simply another poorly executed attempt to relive some moderator headaches and ultimately would have zero net change.

We really want to change OT for the better. We want to foster serious discussions in an environment where trolling, flaming and spam are not prevalent. So we figured maybe if we gave a lighter-moderated forum where spam was tolerated, it would relieve the pressure and not have so much spam in the serious discussion part of the forum. We also figured since we were tolerating spam more, we could give an environment where some trolling and flaming was allowed, but not so it was detrimental to the discussion. We figured we could set up a forum where such things were tolerated more than they previously were. So, close the old OT, bring the discussions over that people really wanted to continue, and move into new directions.

We also looked at the infraction system. Not closely, but decided that we could try something different. I personally don't think the infraction system works well in the OT environment. We decided that the best options were to delete outright or ban outright, not play a system where trolling and flaming was tolerated and even condoned with a slap-on-the-wrist system. Does that mean that infractions are going away? Not right now, we'll see how the new system goes, and tweak from there.

So consider the FC the 'Red Diamond' forum, where serious discussion is encouraged. Yes, it will be slow. Yes, it won't see much traffic. But the discussions in there will evolve into a lesser moderated area as people realize that limited trolling and flaming is tolerated and spam can be largely be ignored. And those that do cross a line either have the posts deleted or are simply removed from the forums for a period of time.

I voted "Yes" but it should really be a "Sort of."

I do like the general idea of having certain threads where we can sort of goof around in (The Taberna threads), threads for hardcore debate (RD in Civilium) and something in between (The rest of Civilium.) I think the choice is good.

I don't like having to click back and forth. And I don't like the no postcount in Taberna (Not because I need to pad my count, because I really want to know how many I have. See my compromise solution in the other thread.)

I'd prefer to see Jollyroger's "Anti RD" thread with very laid back rules and only the most blatant offenses being punished (I'm ignoring the whole PDMA thing and whether or not that's a blatant offense, but I'd agree "More strict" VS "Less strict" should have nothing to do with the PDMA rule.) I do think, however, in the "Anti-RD" threads, the obviously silly and not truly intended to deceive moderator impersonations/joke comments toward certain actions should be allowed in the "Anti-RD/Taberna" threads.

Though I prefer the split to not having any choice for a laid back thread at all. So I do "Reservedly" like the change.

No. It was un-needed.

I do not care about post count, for what it's worth. Join dates are a much more fun way of determining elitism, anyway. :mischief:
Better recognize! :smug:

I agree with Mise that the names are goofy.

I like it if it ends up serving its purpose--one OT forum for serious discussions and the other for fluff discussions.

My initial reaction was in favor, but that has sharply reversed itself, for reasons that Owen Glyndwr and Joecoolio have enumerated. Also, I resent the idea that serious discussion cannot be had in any environment other than a heavily policed one with strict, ruthlessly enforced rules. And that's what the moderation in that forum is: ruthless, not rigorous. It's going to implode on itself in the same way that OT has been slowly doing for years, largely because of the poor moderation habits in the direction I just described, and have elaborated upon more eloquently and exhaustively in the past.

But was the point of the split to increase intense discussion at all? It seems like there was plenty of it already in OT and that the change wasn't designed to affect that. Rather, the point was to lessen overall moderation by creating a section with looser restrictions that we formerly had. For now, most of the threads are gravitating towards to lighter side, but I'm sure in time we'll begin to see the opposite happen. As I see it, the looser standards in the other section aren't ideal for the level of discussion we used to see in OT. Once that's understood, more likely than not we'll see that this change was a good thing.

Honestly I really don't like it.

The names are pretty stupid and confused at a glance (as both start with "Forum" and end with "um"; most other non-Civ fora can be distinguished pretty easily).

But the idea is a good one.

So consider the FC the 'Red Diamond' forum, where serious discussion is encouraged. Yes, it will be slow. Yes, it won't see much traffic. But the discussions in there will evolve into a lesser moderated area as people realize that limited trolling and flaming is tolerated and spam can be largely be ignored. And those that do cross a line either have the posts deleted or are simply removed from the forums for a period of time.

While I see what is being attempted, the trouble is many OT threads switched character midway through the thread, and sometimes repeatedly over the course of a week. The OP is just a starting point.

There is a ton of complaining now about PC, and it probably won't go away if threads are being moved back and forth and PCs regularly fluctuate up and down based on whichever thread gets moved.

Ever since becoming a mod in 2009, dealing with OT has done nothing but get harder and more time consuming. The site grew and the polarization that materialized in society and across the world took firmer shape in OT and even among the moderation staff. What was possible to accept as permissible in 2007 was not in 2010. While such an idea for splitting the forum is not original with me, Mathilda and i hatched a plot to do something similar a few years ago. It failed and eventually, showed up as the RD effort. My purpose then and now in supporting such efforts were two fold. First, to create a place where fun and banter were largely unrestricted and having fun took precedent over discussion content. And second, to fix the ongoing staff conflicts over what was acceptable to post. With such a forum split, moderating is simpler because each of the two forums has pretty clear guidelines for moderating and all the mods can agree on when to step in and when not to. This arrangement allows all the mods to be far more consistent and at the same time moderate less (which is one of my goals).

Everyone likes to complain about change that they did not participate in, and it is easy to find details you don't like: bad date; poor implementation, bad names, two new forums and a closed old forum, sassy mods, etc. etc. But I think you are missing the point. This is the path to consistent and readily anticipated moderation standards, which has been a major complaint for a long time. In addition you now have a place with very loose limits so that fun can lead the way. This is real change.

Is it fixed in place? Not at all. I expect that Science and Tech will soon be folded into the OT discussion forum expanding its draw. I would expect that over the next 90 days or so we will all find out if it was successful and if needed, make changes.

I think it has been a glorious success already. The FT threads are a joy to read and to contribute to. B1tch and moan all you like, but while you do so, please don't forget to enjoy the new found freedom to have some fun too. :)

Dude, when people complain about details with the specific caveat that they like the whole thing, it's a positive thing. Maybe you could just look into the details and see if fixing them wouldn't be a good idea. Stuff like names is clearly not a very involved problem. :p

I'm not complaining at all about the two forums part of it. I too am enjoying the looser feel of the OT-JR forum. I'd just like to get some reward in the shape of pc for all the posting I'm doing in the JR forum.

Why is there no PC in JR? The majority of us want it, and it doesn't hurt a single thing or make moderating any harder. If the Admins would just give us PC than half of our criticisms would be gone.

No wonder there is an outcry--that wasn't the fix we were looking for!

Actually it doesn´t seem to ´fix´ anything.

Love the new forum, by the way. :D

I have no problem with having two forums and overall I think it will work out great.

However, as has been mentioned, the implementation was poor with a terrible release date and confusing mixed messages (some of which were not befitting of the staff at all) from several staff members.

I also endorsed the roll-out on April 1st. Honestly, I thought it would be funny as a reverse not-prank mind blowing prank that would make future pranks that much better as you will forever not know if we are serious or not. Haha. :blush: Apparently it did not go over well with some of you, and I am sorry about that, but ultimately, this is a website we visit to procrastinate/hang out with internet friends/rant/waste time on, so in the big picture, hopefully that does not get in the way of what we are trying to ultimately accomplish, which is make this little not-so-important slice of our lives a better place for everyone.
The problem with the date was that it meant that some people (i.e. me) didn't take it seriously. Then, when it became clear that it was serious, it felt like you had snuck it in by the back door. If you look at the announcement thread that Ori made, there was practically no real discussion of it. That's why there's so much more complaining now, after the split.

It's a pretty major change that you know will ruffle feathers; it deserves to be treated more seriously.

@BirdJag: All of those "other" problems you listed could easily have been prevented if you had discussed it openly first. I.e. announced that you were going to do it, then held a poll for what we wanted it to be called, whether we wanted to archive the old OT or to just create a new, serious OT next to it, and so on. It just seems like, as with so many other things, groupthink took over and you just ran with it.

The problem with the date was that it meant that some people (i.e. me) didn't take it seriously. Then, when it became clear that it was serious, it felt like you had snuck it in by the back door.
That's been made clear? I don't think it has.

Well if I were a mod I wouldn't take this much crap over an April Fool's joke :p

Well if I were a mod I wouldn't take this much crap over an April Fool's joke :p
Hence why you're not a mod. Drawing it out just means more people get sucked in.

I think it has been a glorious success already. The FT threads are a joy to read and to contribute to. B1tch and moan all you like, but while you do so, please don't forget to enjoy the new found freedom to have some fun too. :)
It's interesting that if someone relies on his observations for criticism, it's "too early", but you can inexplicably already declare everything a "glorious success". The way criticism is dealt with actually annoys me more than the actual change discussed.

It's not about "... and moaning" (isn't circumventing the filter an infractable offense? ;)). Most people disagree with details of the implementation, and as far as I've seen, with reasonable arguments. I would understand this as a positive reaction to the overall concept.

As Mise said, if you had just started a discussion about the change before you implemented it, you might have gotten the same comments without both sides being so antagonistic about it. But now it's apparently preferable to simply decree this to be a success and ignore all arguments that say otherwise.

Some aspects of the implementation still have me thinking it might all be a joke :/

I have no problem with having two forums and overall I think it will work out great.

However, as has been mentioned, the implementation was poor with a terrible release date and confusing mixed messages (some of which were not befitting of the staff at all) from several staff members.

I'm sure I said something very similar to this in some other thread, so rather than dig it up and repost it I'll just agree.

Hence why you're not a mod. Drawing it out just means more people get sucked in.

At this point, if it is a joke, then they will have cried the ultimate "wolf."

At this point, if it is a joke, then they will have cried the ultimate "wolf."
Hey, if it isn't a joke, the implementation was so botched that they've got no business in the day-to-day management of an internet forum. I'm just picking the charitable option.

Some aspects of the implementation still have me thinking it might all be a joke :/


For me as well.

From a practical standpoint, splitting the forum is only going to make both serious and lighthearted threads worse, not better.

I know I said I wouldn't be back until it was fixed, but this kvetching is meta in nature and thus does not mean to imply my return to posting on other subjects.

My initial reaction was in favor, but that has sharply reversed itself, for reasons that Owen Glyndwr and Joecoolio have enumerated. Also, I resent the idea that serious discussion cannot be had in any environment other than a heavily policed one with strict, ruthlessly enforced rules. And that's what the moderation in that forum is: ruthless, not rigorous. It's going to implode on itself in the same way that OT has been slowly doing for years, largely because of the poor moderation habits in the direction I just described, and have elaborated upon more eloquently and exhaustively in the past.
The word ruthless is a little dramatic I think but I agree. Seriously doesn't have to be stuffy & silliness doesn't have to be stupid.

I realise I'm contradicting myself all over the place on this issue; I'm just following the crowd mostly.

I'm still two minds about it; I think it's a good idea to have two forums for two styles of posting, with two styles of moderation, and a clear line between them, and part of me is just happy that something is finally being done about the complaints that OT have raised through many years.

On the other paw, the implementation has been less than agreeable, for the reasons many have already said, including the post above me, and then there's that postcount thing.

So despite being the OP of a thread campaigning for the reversal of the split, I do find a lot to like about the split and I won't be too bothered even if Light OT goes without postcount (though I do rather like to have postcount there).

The word ruthless is a little dramatic I think but I agree. Seriously doesn't have to be stuffy & silliness doesn't have to be stupid.

Given their description of the moderation practices to be expected in srs OT, yes, it is ruthless. Instant bans, long-term forum-specific bans, no warnings, no points leading up to bans. It's not constructive towards anything but quickly and effectively removing people who might cross the arbitrary boundaries once.

Oh I didn't read that, does sound ruthless actually & not very useful for stimulating intelligent discussions (as I find the people most willing to occasionally be silly are more interesting than those who want to be all super-serious all the time). Makes for better debates too when you can pause the back & forth to make a joke & acknowledge your own humanity & that of the person you're debating with.

Ever since becoming a mod in 2009, dealing with OT has done nothing but get harder and more time consuming. The site grew and the polarization that materialized in society and across the world took firmer shape in OT and even among the moderation staff. What was possible to accept as permissible in 2007 was not in 2010. While such an idea for splitting the forum is not original with me, Mathilda and i hatched a plot to do something similar a few years ago. It failed and eventually, showed up as the RD effort. My purpose then and now in supporting such efforts were two fold. First, to create a place where fun and banter were largely unrestricted and having fun took precedent over discussion content. And second, to fix the ongoing staff conflicts over what was acceptable to post. With such a forum split, moderating is simpler because each of the two forums has pretty clear guidelines for moderating and all the mods can agree on when to step in and when not to. This arrangement allows all the mods to be far more consistent and at the same time moderate less (which is one of my goals).


I don’t think that is exactly true. Let’s be real about this. The critical change was not the traffic, the polarization (Bush was the most polarizing figure there was from an international perspective-gone in 2008) or the posters or poster style. What changed is who were moderators and administrators and their singular opinion on how the site should be moderated. I suppose some members liked the stricter moderation but I’d be hard pressed to name one, some were neutral, and many chaffed under the restrictions.

People were not asking for a spam forum or a non-serious forum (both things were always allowed in OT to some extent- music, birthday, rants etc). They were asking for a forum in which they could converse in a normal manner for human beings-ie. serious mixed with joking, and pointed criticism. Essentially light trolling -JR style. That’s it and that’s the way it was in the old days and it produced this very vibrant and interesting forum. It was not overrun with spam for PC or flame wars. It was not a problem.

The condescending manner in which the new forum is presented and the removal of PC which many dislike is just an ill advised way to run things and irks people and some of the mods seem to be enjoying it. They essentially troll the whole community.

For people who claim to prefer serious fact based discussion they present very little of it regarding the changes. For example the removal of PC is for a perceived problem that has yet to materialize. Why not just allow it on a trial basis or present evidence on the level of spam infractions from the old OT relative to other areas to justify it. Go to FT and tell me what is the level of spam vs informative post? What is the level of srs discussion compared to the old OT? The data would not seem to support the reasoning for not allowing PC or calling it a forum for non-srs discussion. Is it beneath the people who actually make the decisions to discuss them with the community in a clear and reasonable and serious manner?

I like it, but I'd like to make a couple of suggestions:
1.) Reinstate PC in Tavern
2.) Maintain the policy vision set out in Tavern
3.) Delete Debate
4.) Rename Tavern to Off-Topic

I might sound like a hypocrite here, having reported a terrible post from a terrible poster in the past, but that is a degree of evil I am willing to concede if it means people can talk to each other like normal human beings.

On behalf of OT-haters everywhere, I welcome this destruction of our hated enemy.

The only thing better would be the retrospective deletion of all OT postcount. :evil:

I've been busy

The split doesn't bother me. I just wish we had a subforum for American politics

So far I like the split per se, but there are a LOT of things about the way it was done that I dislike. I think the experiment should run for at least a month, and I think that moderators should be constantly tweaking it during that month, with regular, public reviews.

In no particular order (i.e. in the order they pop into my head):

1) The names are retarded, pretentious, and completely nondescript. They don't give me any information about whether I'm in a serious forum or a frivolous forum. Just... Ugh...
2) There should be a warning on the OT-SR forum, at the top of each thread, to warn people that moderation will be harsher here
3) OT should have been left alone, not locked or archived. I cannot see any valid reason for locking it and moving threads one by one to a new forum, instead of just renaming OT to "OT-JR" and adding a new "OT-SR" forum, with the dozen or so "srsbzns" threads moved into there.
4) OT-JR should have post counts. I cannot see any valid reason for not having post counts on any part of the forum. Post count measures how many posts you have made, simple as that.
5) It should not have been done on April Fool's Day... My god, who's stupid idea was that?! You couldn't have waited until 2nd April to announce it?! What the hell were you thinking! More fool me for assuming a level of common sense that was clearly absent.

There are probably more things that I will think about later.
I love you Mise. :bowdown:
I'm going to adopt the controversial and extreme position of giving it a try, reserving judgement and seeing how I like it after a few weeks . Obviously I will have to endure great pain in the coming weeks as I face this trial .
Counter revolutionist!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:
Reactionaries! To the guillotine with them!
Yeah, Lucy, I think we should've left the original OT and renamed it as one of the new OT and then made a 2nd OT.

Unfortunately, my time/availability is a bit spotty and limited atm, so I was more on the periphery of the change.
Pity.
I actually have no problem with this decision. I think making the two separate subforums was a good idea. The things I don't like are the

a.) decision to release it on April 1
b.) the condescending, rude, even dickish way in which many of the moderators are handling the whole thing. Come on, guys, you know this forum is full of change-averse posters who will be confused and angry about the whole thing, the least you could do is not be such asshats about it. This to me is the worst part of this whole ordeal. You all should be ashamed to call yourselves moderators.
c.) The lack of PC for OT-JR.

a) will be fixed with time. b) and c) can be very easily remedied; do that and I couldn't be happier.

Some aspects of the implementation still have me thinking it might all be a joke :/
For me as well.
No, the current moderation is a joke.
I like it, but I'd like to make a couple of suggestions:
1.) Reinstate PC in Tavern
2.) Maintain the policy vision set out in Tavern
3.) Delete Debate
4.) Rename Tavern to Off-Topic

I might sound like a hypocrite here, having reported a terrible post from a terrible poster in the past, but that is a degree of evil I am willing to concede if it means people can talk to each other like normal human beings.
I'd change point 4.) to 'merge Tavern with Off-Topic'. ;)
On behalf of OT-haters everywhere, I welcome this destruction of our hated enemy.

The only thing better would be the retrospective deletion of all OT postcount. :evil:
Come our great day, we have something special planned for you.

The arbitrary boundaries between what is serious and constructive and what is not has always put be in opposition to red-diamond threads. Now I'm in opposition to this.

Given their description of the moderation practices to be expected in srs OT, yes, it is ruthless. Instant bans, long-term forum-specific bans, no warnings, no points leading up to bans. It's not constructive towards anything but quickly and effectively removing people who might cross the arbitrary boundaries once.

And I agree with this. The moderation on the old OT was tight enough as it was. A new forum with looser moderation? Good idea. Ruthless moderation for the rest of OT? That'll kill discussion if it gets applied, because you'll end up expelling every view but the "center" from there. Nothing left to discuss, why would people post just to say, basically, that they all agree?

That'll kill discussion if it gets applied, because you'll end up expelling every view but the "center" from there. Nothing left to discuss, why would people post just to say, basically, that they all agree?
Nah. What it'll do is it'll kill discussion because people who hold horribly objectionable opinions that troll normal people by their mere existence will be even more explicitly protected because they're not, technically, trolling. So we get more of the same, which will drive away sensible posters and turn this place into a wasteland.

Well, into more of a wasteland.

I guess some people have identified with the attacker for long enough, and now fail to see they have become one, or use convoluted reasoning to convince themselves they are something strikingly different.

Waited with my opinion for a few days. Don't like the split.

What's cracking me up is how everyone howls for change. Then a change is made (responding to criticism and trying to build a solution that addresses the criticism) and they just howl more.Ok, this is the second time I'm reading this from a mod. Now, I love you all to bits, but please. I know you guys have more class than this.

Instead of going: oh you guys are unsatisfyable (good call by the way your honour, most of us are human beings which have such a tremendous reputation of being easily pleased) please do consider how mindbogglingly poorly the split was handled. As far as I know, no warning it was going to happen (if I missed it and there was one my criticism changes to the find-ability of that warning) and it was done on the 1st of April for Zeus' sake. Which one of you geniuses' dogs cooked that one up? A little introspection on that whopper would be appreciated.

Going by the reasoning, any change is good change. If we complain about people spamming threads, close the threads. A change is made to address the problem, so it's a good change. Now please stop complaining.

I don't know what criticism this is supposed to address, but it sure as heck isn't my main criticism that the forum is becoming more and more fragmented with little niches all over the Colosseum. I want my threads sitting pretty and waiting for me in one easily accessible place. (The only time I voiced that criticism prior to the split was one of them anonymous surveys).

I short, I don't know what the ef you guys are banging on about with your new found victim-routine, but it doesn't suit you guys. It clashes with your shoes.

Speaking for myself, I get the complaints about how some things have been perceived as being presented or discussed dismissively. I'm sorry if it's come off that way. We don't intend to give that impression, but perhaps frequent interaction/argument on contentious issues can lead us to be a bit abrupt.

I'm not too sure about the April 1st complaint though. Perhaps it's that you felt like the butt of the joke? I don't know. But from the perspective that it's meant to be a positive change, announcing it on April 1st (which, BTW, served as a very useful deadline, without which, for better or worse, staff discussions can become pretty interminable) doesn't strike me as bad timing. Our intention was certainly not to piss people off with the change date, but to provide some entertainment value (to the extent that April Fools day things are entertaining). Guilty as charged if you think this is far too serious a change for us to be trying to inject some levity into, but I can't say I really agree on that point (and so don't really understand it).

The date did not cause me to be pissed off, nor did it make me feel the butt of a joke. But I did log in on April the 1st. Saw what happened. Looked around and logged out thinking it'd be gone in a couple of days. It created predictable confusion.

I just don't see why it was timed to coincide with April fools if it wasn't meant to be taken as a joke. To me that's like organising a trip to the pub and then complaining the crowd is rowdy because you scheduled the trip for new years eve; I mean what did you expect?

I also endorsed the roll-out on April 1st. Honestly, I thought it would be funny as a reverse not-prank mind blowing prank that would make future pranks that much better as you will forever not know if we are serious or not. Haha. :blush: Apparently it did not go over well with some of you, and I am sorry about that, but ultimately, this is a website we visit to procrastinate/hang out with internet friends/rant/waste time on, so in the big picture, hopefully that does not get in the way of what we are trying to ultimately accomplish, which is make this little not-so-important slice of our lives a better place for everyone.

:salute: I thank you for acknowledging this.

The idea is to shift OT into a new direction. Yes, a split one, but new directions none the less. By closing the old forum we're trying to move away from what OT was from the moderator's viewpoint - a place that was a chore to moderate and often brought a lot of mod burnout. We realize there are a lot of valid discussion worthy threads still in OT, which is why we're asking that you report the posts and we'll gladly move them to the FC or FT (and I do agree, those are horrible names) where the discussion can continue. But just splitting a new subforum off to try and shove some of the OT stuff would not really be a new paradigm, it's simply another poorly executed attempt to relive some moderator headaches and ultimately would have zero net change.

We really want to change OT for the better. We want to foster serious discussions in an environment where trolling, flaming and spam are not prevalent. So we figured maybe if we gave a lighter-moderated forum where spam was tolerated, it would relieve the pressure and not have so much spam in the serious discussion part of the forum. We also figured since we were tolerating spam more, we could give an environment where some trolling and flaming was allowed, but not so it was detrimental to the discussion. We figured we could set up a forum where such things were tolerated more than they previously were. So, close the old OT, bring the discussions over that people really wanted to continue, and move into new directions.

We also looked at the infraction system. Not closely, but decided that we could try something different. I personally don't think the infraction system works well in the OT environment. We decided that the best options were to delete outright or ban outright, not play a system where trolling and flaming was tolerated and even condoned with a slap-on-the-wrist system. Does that mean that infractions are going away? Not right now, we'll see how the new system goes, and tweak from there.

So consider the FC the 'Red Diamond' forum, where serious discussion is encouraged. Yes, it will be slow. Yes, it won't see much traffic. But the discussions in there will evolve into a lesser moderated area as people realize that limited trolling and flaming is tolerated and spam can be largely be ignored. And those that do cross a line either have the posts deleted or are simply removed from the forums for a period of time.

I understand the reason for closing new discussions in #18, starting fresh. What I don't understand is the need to lock 58,482 threads. Bumping old threads is totally legitimate and having to bug a mod to move one then wait for one to show up and do it is making us jump through an unnecessary hoop. From this side, it feels like having to ask permission, and for no good reason. We shouldn't be treated like children.

Instead, you can set permissions in #18 such that posters can post in old threads, but not start new ones. Whenever a thread is bumped, move it to a live forum. It's super easy to see that a thread has been bumped, any mod can move it when he sees it, and we don't have to wait to post our posts. You could even change the forum description to mention to noobs that new posts in that forum will be moved.

Changing the infraction system is a good thing; I am enthusiastic on it.

Ever since becoming a mod in 2009, dealing with OT has done nothing but get harder and more time consuming. The site grew and the polarization that materialized in society and across the world took firmer shape in OT and even among the moderation staff. What was possible to accept as permissible in 2007 was not in 2010. While such an idea for splitting the forum is not original with me, Mathilda and i hatched a plot to do something similar a few years ago. It failed and eventually, showed up as the RD effort. My purpose then and now in supporting such efforts were two fold. First, to create a place where fun and banter were largely unrestricted and having fun took precedent over discussion content. And second, to fix the ongoing staff conflicts over what was acceptable to post. With such a forum split, moderating is simpler because each of the two forums has pretty clear guidelines for moderating and all the mods can agree on when to step in and when not to. This arrangement allows all the mods to be far more consistent and at the same time moderate less (which is one of my goals).

Everyone likes to complain about change that they did not participate in, and it is easy to find details you don't like: bad date; poor implementation, bad names, two new forums and a closed old forum, sassy mods, etc. etc. But I think you are missing the point. This is the path to consistent and readily anticipated moderation standards, which has been a major complaint for a long time. In addition you now have a place with very loose limits so that fun can lead the way. This is real change.

Is it fixed in place? Not at all. I expect that Science and Tech will soon be folded into the OT discussion forum expanding its draw. I would expect that over the next 90 days or so we will all find out if it was successful and if needed, make changes.

I think it has been a glorious success already. The FT threads are a joy to read and to contribute to. B1tch and moan all you like, but while you do so, please don't forget to enjoy the new found freedom to have some fun too. :)

Pretty clear guidelines - can you tell us what those guidelines are? Maybe some concrete examples? The only thing you've told us is that OT:SPAM will be moderated loosely and OT:SRS will be moderated strictly. It's not right for us to have to trip over the lines to figure out where they are.

And stop trivializing the complaints. Anybody that stuck out the age of the red text smackdown obviously gives a damn about this community. You could've discussed this with us. Instead you try to pass it off as a prank then the next day our bookmarks go to a graveyard and half the mods are being dicks, saying things that we would've been infracted for a week ago. I love the idea of mods with attitude. But you started playing before you bothered telling us we could play too. It didn't come across as sassy, it came across as condescending and rude. Take us seriously. We give a damn.

That's been made clear? I don't think it has.

I think they realize they've jerked us around enough already.

The condescending manner in which the new forum is presented and the removal of PC which many dislike is just an ill advised way to run things and irks people and some of the mods seem to be enjoying it. They essentially troll the whole community.

Yeah, I don't much care about the postcount, but it's showing the worst example of "because we said so" mod borging I have seen in all of my time here.

Speaking for myself, I get the complaints about how some things have been perceived as being presented or discussed dismissively. I'm sorry if it's come off that way. We don't intend to give that impression, but perhaps frequent interaction/argument on contentious issues can lead us to be a bit abrupt.

I'm not too sure about the April 1st complaint though. Perhaps it's that you felt like the butt of the joke? I don't know. But from the perspective that it's meant to be a positive change, announcing it on April 1st (which, BTW, served as a very useful deadline, without which, for better or worse, staff discussions can become pretty interminable) doesn't strike me as bad timing. Our intention was certainly not to piss people off with the change date, but to provide some entertainment value (to the extent that April Fools day things are entertaining). Guilty as charged if you think this is far too serious a change for us to be trying to inject some levity into, but I can't say I really agree on that point (and so don't really understand it).

Mise nailed it as usual.

The problem with the date was that it meant that some people (i.e. me) didn't take it seriously. Then, when it became clear that it was serious, it felt like you had snuck it in by the back door. If you look at the announcement thread that Ori made, there was practically no real discussion of it. That's why there's so much more complaining now, after the split.

It's a pretty major change that you know will ruffle feathers; it deserves to be treated more seriously.




I realize I'm repeating some stuff that's already been said. It's important to note the overlapping complaints.




And yeah, I think I like the forum split, but I'll reserve judgment until we see where it goes. Hopefully not to a mountain of H&J spam and a red card shooting range.

I like the split, though not being able to Red Diamond a thread in the high traffic forum seems a bit of a restriction.

I like the split, though not being able to Red Diamond a thread in the high traffic forum seems a bit of a restriction.

You're just trying to backdoor the more reasonable solution of one OT with FT modding and RD for old modding standards. You're so subversive.:lol:

By putting my Red Diamond thread in the non-postcount forum, it reduces the risk of spam.

Instead of going: oh you guys are unsatisfyable (good call by the way your honour, most of us are human beings which have such a tremendous reputation of being easily pleased) please do consider how mindbogglingly poorly the split was handled. As far as I know, no warning it was going to happen (if I missed it and there was one my criticism changes to the find-ability of that warning) and it was done on the 1st of April for Zeus' sake. Which one of you geniuses' dogs cooked that one up? A little introspection on that whopper would be appreciated.
Fair enough and I think some of the other comments regarding this make a lot of sense.

TBH, it all came together rather quickly (in stark contrast to how it seems we typically do things), so the Apr 1 roll out probably was not the best.

So, just for myself, I apologize for that. But, it was well intended.

Que sera. :)

I have to say it makes the forums seem a bit more cheesy and confusing than before.

On the other hand, I wouldn't walk in as a guest somewhere and start telling them how to arrange their furniture.

I've been absent for some time and only learned of it pretty much when it was implemented, but I have to say I like the change. Sure, there are some things things that annoy some guys (like the postcount thingy, though I absolutely fail to understand why it's so important).

what kinda suprised me was the outrage over the date. Personally, I thought it rather funny in a non-joke kinda way. But even if you don't like it one little bit, I think some of you are rather overdoing the outrage thingy over this....lighten up :)

On the other hand, I wouldn't walk in as a guest somewhere and start telling them how to arrange their furniture.

But when asked whether you like the way their furniture is arranged you would.

Honestly, I just came back from my weekly training book ins to find the forum in this mess.
So, I'm confused and feel vulnerable now that I can no longer locate the Altered Maps thread...

If I had a problem with the split is deciding where the line is drawn between serious and light-hearted threads.

Nah. What it'll do is it'll kill discussion because people who hold horribly objectionable opinions that troll normal people by their mere existence will be even more explicitly protected because they're not, technically, trolling. So we get more of the same, which will drive away sensible posters and turn this place into a wasteland.

You say "wasteland" only because you think a discussion should be more than an extended and rancorous fact-checking session on the part of most so-called "normal" posters. But it's the future. Except, N DA FCHA IT WL LL B LLZ TLK.

Speaking for myself, I get the complaints about how some things have been perceived as being presented or discussed dismissively. I'm sorry if it's come off that way. We don't intend to give that impression, but perhaps frequent interaction/argument on contentious issues can lead us to be a bit abrupt.

I'm not too sure about the April 1st complaint though. Perhaps it's that you felt like the butt of the joke? I don't know. But from the perspective that it's meant to be a positive change, announcing it on April 1st (which, BTW, served as a very useful deadline, without which, for better or worse, staff discussions can become pretty interminable) doesn't strike me as bad timing. Our intention was certainly not to piss people off with the change date, but to provide some entertainment value (to the extent that April Fools day things are entertaining). Guilty as charged if you think this is far too serious a change for us to be trying to inject some levity into, but I can't say I really agree on that point (and so don't really understand it).
Entertainment? Entertainment? If you're doing something serious, it's not to be treated as lightly as you did. :wallbash:

I've been absent for some time and only learned of it pretty much when it was implemented, but I have to say I like the change. Sure, there are some things things that annoy some guys (like the postcount thingy, though I absolutely fail to understand why it's so important).

what kinda suprised me was the outrage over the date. Personally, I thought it rather funny in a non-joke kinda way. But even if you don't like it one little bit, I think some of you are rather overdoing the outrage thingy over this....lighten up :)

This sums up neatly the attitude of some mods towards criticism: Some guys have a

- ´postcount thingy´

or are

- ´over doing the outrage thingy´.

Best way for posters to deal with their´ criticism:

- lighten up :).

Seems like a good illustration of how little some mods actually understand about posting and what it means to posters.

(FYI: I personally have no issue with the changes implemented - although something might be said about the way they were implemented, but this has been said already.)

What's cracking me up is how everyone howls for change. Then a change is made (responding to criticism and trying to build a solution that addresses the criticism) and they just howl more.

I promise you there is NOTHING we could do that would make the howling stop, short of shooting the dogs.

Be careful what you wish for.

/maniacal laughHardly anyone's wanted a split forum though. I'm in favor of having fewer subforums but I'm willing to give it a chance. It makes CFC more of a hassle but we'll see.

So, just for myself, I apologize for that. But, it was well intended.

Que sera. :)

UFF1wJN75Z0

Why, yes I did

This sums up neatly the attitude of some mods towards criticism: Some guys have a

- ´postcount thingy´

or are

- ´over doing the outrage thingy´.

Best way for posters to deal with their´ criticism:

- lighten up :).

Seems like a good illustration of how little some mods actually understand about posting and what it means to posters.

(FYI: I personally have no issue with the changes implemented - although something might be said about the way they were implemented, but this has been said already.)
actually, your post kinda illustrates my point as well. It's a tad tiring when a post that was intended in a light hearted way gets picked apart piece by piece and people try to read the maximal possible amount of insult in each and every term.

what many seem to forget here, is that at mods are to some extent normal posters as well and want this site to thrive like most of you do. and every now and then some of us would like to post here without having to have our posts proof read by a lawyer to make sure that no part of it can possible be interpreted as an insult.

as for the 'lighten up' part that most certainly wasn't intended to mean that you should keep your cirticism to yourself but that some (only some, most seem to be quite capable of presenting it in a rather level headed way - kudos to you) might do good to take a step back, take a few lungs of fresh air and then read it again before becoming all outraged.

besides the postcount has been re-enabled despite many mods not liking it, so err...lighten up ;)

actually, your post kinda illustrates my point as well. It's a tad tiring when a post that was intended in a light hearted way gets picked apart piece by piece and people try to read the maximal possible amount of insult in each and every term.

I'd blame that on the dismissive tone of some of the earlier posts by the staff that amounted to "don't like it, tough poo".

Guise, srsly, if this isn't a joke, at least give these two subforms some non-clumsy and self-explainatory names, say "Lounge" for Tavern (and make it first in the list), and Serious Talk (after all we have sports talk and computer talk) for The Chamber.

But overall, I don't give three flying ducks. Leave it as it is for all I care.

EDIT: Also, whatcha gonna do with all the old OT topics? Are you gonna sort them all into srs bzns discussions/trolling and loling, or just move to archive?

I like chamber and tavern. lounge is lame. chamber is cross between bedroom, bathroom, and grand senate chamber.

what many seem to forget here, is that at mods are to some extent normal posters as well and want this site to thrive like most of you do. and every now and then some of us would like to post here without having to have our posts proof read by a lawyer to make sure that no part of it can possible be interpreted as an insult.
But you're no longer an ordinary poster once you're given the powers of a moderator: to edit and delete posts; to open and close, split and merge threads; to hand out warnings and infractions; to even edit our polls as was so insultingly done, anonymously, with the Postcount poll; all those and more, you're no longer our equal. With power comes responsibility. It's like a policeman in uniform claiming to be the equal of people on the street.

I'd blame that on the dismissive tone of some of the earlier posts by the staff that amounted to "don't like it, tough poo".

This whole situation reminds me of how language-, race-, religion-, politics-, opinion- etc. strifes are born and get deeper: The mods see posters as one entity and posters see mods as one entity. Posters A, B and C demand this. Mods do this, and posters D and E say they want that. Mod 1 says "tough poo, this is what you wanted", and then mod 2 gets blamed on it. Mod 2 gets tired of posters being impossible and infracts everybody...

Not really, but its not my decision.

Well the Chamber Pot section of OT has not made it to one page of threads in nearly a week.

OT was split into The Chamber Pot and the other section when OT had many less serious threads.
So the other section was automatically bigger than The Chamber Pot.

Most people post in OT to debate, ask questions and give others the benefit of their knowledge. Some people want a highly restricted debating place like The Chamber Pot others want a more freewheeling place like the other place. But most people are in the middle and want some of both. Since the other section is bigger the people in the middle will tend to post there.

In the end The Chamber Pot will have some good technical debates between a limited number of posters with some visits from posters from the other section, just like History. Most of the posters in the other section will view it as a lower quality OT and will be posting there because they do not have the pre Fools Day OT.:sad:

Well the Chamber Pot section of OT has not made it to one page of threads in nearly a week.

This is not a bad thing. A healthy forum does not necessarily require a rapid proliferation of (often bad) threads.

This is not a bad thing. A healthy forum does not necessarily require a rapid proliferation of (often bad) threads.

I agree but that is why this section will end up like History with a few good threads and a few posters.

do you like the forum split?

It messes with my split personality toooo much.

I'd blame that on the dismissive tone of some of the earlier posts by the staff that amounted to "don't like it, tough poo".
well, what can I say? I can only speak for myself...contrary to popular belief we do not have a hive mind ;)

But you're no longer an ordinary poster once you're given the powers of a moderator: to edit and delete posts; to open and close, split and merge threads; to hand out warnings and infractions; to even edit our polls as was so insultingly done, anonymously, with the Postcount poll; all those and more, you're no longer our equal. With power comes responsibility. It's like a policeman in uniform claiming to be the equal of people on the street.
and here we have the core of the problem as I see it. because, IMHO, in a functioning society a policeman very much is an equal to a person on the street. he may have been given a few extra powers but at his core he still is a regular guy. societies where this isn't the case invariably experience a sense of disconnection between law enforcement and the citizens which leads to all kinds of nasty things. and the same is true of CFC, if I might say so, so let's not get there :)

besides, even cops in uniform get time off duty ;)

They typically take the uniform off. Really it's too bad mods can't post without their uniforms. It'd help a lot.

Nah, it sucks. Badly handled by the mods, and still the troll mods are getting away with their trolling.

When we wanted a forum without quote wars and BOLD CAPS idiocy, they just endorsed it.

They typically take the uniform off. Really it's too bad mods can't post without their uniforms. It'd help a lot.
that would be kinda fun, though I'm not sure if people want to see me out of my uniform, I mean, err...nevermind

I like the concept but it's not working the way I hoped. I was hoping one forum would be for non-serious topics and the other would be for controversial topics. But if you show me ten thread titles I would have a hard time guessing which ones were from which forum.

Like the idea of bringing back OT the way it used to be, before Thunderfall disappeared and suddenly everything had to moderated up the wazoo but I dislike this execution. I dont expect they will listen anyway.

No, sorry, but it sucks

I am not realy getting this. We have three off topic discussion subforums here and while one is for serious discussion, other for not so serious one and the third one? I guess it should be renamed "trolls paradise" where there is only one rule: "there is no rule", so it somewhat makes sense otherwise its all bit confusing..
Simplicity rules. Make it user friendly and intuitive pls. so that it doesnt look like its made by Microsoft... Thx

Definitely still sucks. This forum was on the decline anyway but this has made it that much worse. Used to just start typing 18 in my browser window. Now there's two subforums to scan thru just to find very little of interest... maybe it's a cue for me to find a place more in-line with my current interests, none of which have much to do with computer games or the usual politics, current events & tit for tat back & forth debating threads typical of these forums.

How the blazes do we get a 462 number for this forum? What have we done? Are there really 461 other forums?

Now what's going on? OT is open again & has two active threads... Three OT forums??? I'm confused.:confused:

It's been reopened for posting only (no new threads), so that people can bump the threads they want to be moved. It will be closed again soon.

The long term effects of this will be stagnation in the OT community as fragmenting your group of posters will inevitably result in individual threads receiving less activity and attention.

Thus hurrying the death of the cancer that is OT. Excellent work, mods!

I can't tell the difference between the two forums at the moment. It seems both run on about the same scrutiny, which is fine by me in fact.

Split is still completely unnecessary in my opinion.

Question: what would it take for this split decision to be reversed? Is that even a consideration?

It's been reopened for posting only (no new threads), so that people can bump the threads they want to be moved. It will be closed again soon.
So, in other words, any thread not bumped in the next few days will die forever?

No, because you can always report it and ask for it to be moved. Or PM a moderator.

Question: what would it take for this split decision to be reversed? Is that even a consideration?

We wouldn't rule out anything entirely, as there might be some hypothetical situation in which we'd reverse the decision. But it's not likely, no. We're more interested in looking at how to make a split work.

We wouldn't rule out anything entirely, as there might be some hypothetical situation in which we'd reverse the decision. But it's not likely, no. We're more interested in looking at how to make a split work.

I feel like this is pretty good approach. Ultimately something decent and better prior to the change could come out of it...

I would probably try to put art, science and history under the Chamber subforum and sports talk and humor under the Tavern....

How the blazes do we get a 462 number for this forum? What have we done? Are there really 461 other forums?

C&C and the related project subforums are probably contributing quite a bit.

I can't tell the difference between the two forums at the moment. It seems both run on about the same scrutiny, which is fine by me in fact.

Split is still completely unnecessary in my opinion.

From this side of the fence the change is enormous. I suspect it will have or has had effect on non-mod posters too.

Perhaps it's not that good question if people like the forum split or not, since people often don't like changes. Perhaps the question should be: Is the forum split better than the OT that we had? Could the forum split evolve to be better than the OT we had.

So, in other words, any thread not bumped in the next few days will die forever?

Like Cami said. As far as I've understood, the old OT will be archived at some moment, so the threads won't be lost, come what may.

From this side of the fence the change is enormous. I suspect it will have or has had effect on non-mod posters too.

Perhaps it's not that good question if people like the forum split or not, since people often don't like changes. Perhaps the question should be: Is the forum split better than the OT that we had? Could the forum split evolve to be better than the OT we had.

The percentage of people in the poll who have voted No to the change is increasing.

It would appear that people are not growing too accept the change from the figures in the poll.

From the number of active threads in The Chamber Pot and the other section it would appear that the number of posts has gone down.

Do the mods have any figures to prove or disprove that subjective impression?

C&C and the related project subforums are probably contributing quite a bit.
Yet another reason to delete the entire Civ5 section.

Do the mods have any figures to prove or disprove that subjective impression?

Not to my knowledge.

I think that even 30-40 dedicated posters in the Chamber would be a good improvement on what was had before.
In fact the history forum did fine with a lot less.

Not to my knowledge.
I thought you had access to figures such as numbers of threads made, posts made, etc. Or were those really just ainwood and Turner suffering from insomnia and killing time by cataloguing threads?

Well, we have access to such figures just as much as anyone does, in that we can all count if we wanted to.

To answer Silurian, I imagine we will probably be looking for fresh opinions at the beginning of next month or something, when people have settled into the change. It's hard to know how to interpret this poll (people may have changed their opinions since voting, for example).

New thread was made, so this one can be closed.