CFC Mod! Freeze, miscreant!
- Thread starter .:KNAS:.
- Start date
- Status
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
The <=> ainwood used is normally taken to indicate "is equivalent to". One assumes that's not what he meant.
If anyone would be using non-customized titles, there actually really is a kind of recognition for having many posts. Now, the highest limit is a measly 1500, so if people stuck to that, we'd have huge numbers of Deities. Cf 'Poly, which has got a Deity limit of 10k, and a couple dozen Deities.
(They've also got the concept of "Mingification" - catching up with Ming in postcount. The equivalent here would be CurtSiblingification.)
I rather like the stars for the mods. Don't dilute them by giving us spammers something similar.
If anyone would be using non-customized titles, there actually really is a kind of recognition for having many posts. Now, the highest limit is a measly 1500, so if people stuck to that, we'd have huge numbers of Deities. Cf 'Poly, which has got a Deity limit of 10k, and a couple dozen Deities.
(They've also got the concept of "Mingification" - catching up with Ming in postcount. The equivalent here would be CurtSiblingification.)
I rather like the stars for the mods. Don't dilute them by giving us spammers something similar.
nonconformist
Miserable
How about stars for each ban someone has had?
It's our policy to ban but not to make public. We don't really believe in publicized humiliations.nonconformist said:
Some posters might also be tempted to get banned, to get their 5 seconds of 'fame'.
Besides, for some users, there wouldn't be enough space for all the symbols needed...
It's never our policy to cultivate an elitist group of posters, differentiated fr the rest. All posters are equal. Regardless of how much you'd spammed to date.Inter32 said:How about somehing like this:
After you do a certain number of posts in a forum you become an OT regular or Sports Regular, or Civ3 Regular..you get the point..
TF could develop some kind of image for the regulars
just a thought
I'm not sure whether it's good to have all those mod stars...
nonconformist
Miserable
I think public humiliation is fine. It's funny, as long as it isn't me.
MarineCorps
Explosion!
XIII said:It's our policy to ban but not to make public. We don't really believe in publicized humiliations.
Some posters might also be tempted to get banned, to get their 5 seconds of 'fame'.
Besides, for some users, there wouldn't be enough space for all the symbols needed...
Why does it seem that every idea we come up with would somehow resault in a pointless competion?
ybbor
Will not change his avata
XIII said:Some posters might also be tempted to get banned, to get their 5 seconds of 'fame'.
or 5 days
@MC:for the same reasons they put arning lables on cotton balls (warning, do not use while jumpihng out of a plane with no parachute, with 7.3 tons of TNT strapped to your body, set to land over the factory of charp point things), so no one sues them. but really, its because creating/eliminating rules requires more work to moderate.
examples
Poster:I think we should add the [plasma] smiley back
TF: NO! then there would just be a competition as to how many [plasma] smuilies a poster can put in a thread or forum
Poster: we should have the people on our "buddy list" have a small icon next to thier names
TF:NO! then there would be a competition as to how many budy icons a person could get in one screenshot
Poster: We should buy cookies for all the mods, to show how much we appreciate them
TF: NO! then there qwould just be a contest as to how many cookies one buys for the mods...wait...
The purp[ose of moderator action edited into posts threads is not directed at highlighting the poster, but rather at the behavior that triggered the action. A centraly posted list of persons subjected to moderator action were highlight the posters therein. But posting action in the offending thread/post, only thoses person who have seen the offending behavior will see the action, and it will mostly serve as a "do not do this" display, and secondarily as a vindication for those other posters who have been offended or discomoded by the behavior.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
XIII said:
I for one, would need a new sig line!
nonconformist
Miserable
If we cannot see the names, could you just post what people have been banned for?
Too much work...nonconformist said:
Banning, logging the ban in Staff, actioning in public (if required), and handling the poster being banned thru PMs are already taking up a lot of time... :rant:
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I personally think this "public humilitation" thing is rubbish because you ban people publically but don't let the fight back publically.
nonconformist
Miserable
I recon that banning should be renamed "The Cooler" and mods should be renamed "Weasels". Administrator should be renamed "Kommandant".
cgannon64 said:
If it were allowed to question the moderators in public, all sorts of chaos would ensue. For those of you who have sent me PMs about mod actions I have taken, I have generally tried to give you a satisfactory explanation (assuming your tone was polite). Bannings are made public to ensure that people understand what sort of behavior will get them banned...
Mostimes we don't 'ban people publicly', except when we need to assure people that tough action has been taken.cgannon64 said:
Like for example, how people are banned at this moment, you know?
Mods aren't getting paid for doing this - I'd rather resign, than spending my time fighting with banned people and their 'associates' in public.
- Status
