Using the [RD] prefix

[Kyriakos]

FWIW most of the non-colosseum parts of CFC are centered on modding communities. Only the Civ5 seems to have (i suspect) a crucial number of non-modders who take part in the threads of that forum. The rest of the Civ games are sustained here by those who create stuff for them, and they are less likely to fight one another after all those years and common stealing sharing of their works

 

[Flying Pig]

Alternatively, the 'General Discussion' fora have such a low standard of, well, general discussion that most of us over here stay well clear. C&C used to be a great community when I was modding, mind.

 

[Camikaze]

If you want the rest of CFC to thrive

That it does quite well too. The only decline of concern has probably been in OT since we introduced an optional lower standard. It'd seem unlikely that OT would suffer if lots of OPs continue to use the [RD] prefix.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yeah, the lesson from the split was that Tavern-level moderation was the problem. Probably the only thing that saved the Tavern was merging it back to the more thriving Chamber.

 

[Camikaze]

I believe you were the one implying there's some connection between moderation levels and activity?

If you want the rest of CFC to thrive rather than merely survive, perhaps you should give that statement a bit deeper thought.

To clarify the original point - the RD standard is not markedly different from the general forum rules, i.e. those in place in every other part of CFC. It doesn't concern us in the slightest if all OPs decide to use the [RD] prefix.

 

[Takhisis]

A thought exercise: why don't you make it the standard and force people to choose lower moderation standards if they so desire, instead of the other way around?

 

[JollyRoger]

I could think of narrow instances where designating a thread as RD would be useful, but as a general rule, I do not know why any poster would want their thread moderated at 2011 levels. We have finally almost got the standard back to where it is reasonable. If we can keep the moderation team down to these now listed as actual OT mods, things would be ideal.

 

[Mise]

A thought exercise: why don't you make it the standard and force people to choose lower moderation standards if they so desire, instead of the other way around?

We did that before. We split the forum in two, and posters had a choice as to where they wanted to post: the lower moderation Tavern, or the higher moderation Chamber. They overwhelmingly chose the Tavern, hence the decision to re-merge the two, and make Tavern moderation the default.

 

[Kyriakos]

Tavern moderation is the default, but only in the OT subforum. A bit like saying the default on the earth is getting cut to bits, but only if you are in the area of raging endless civil war

 

[Takhisis]

We did that before. We split the forum in two, and posters had a choice as to where they wanted to post: the lower moderation Tavern, or the higher moderation Chamber. They overwhelmingly chose the Tavern, hence the decision to re-merge the two, and make Tavern moderation the default.

But that isn't the same, Mise. Splitting it into two forums was just moving the RD threads into another forum with far less activity, all non-RD threads were sent to the Tavern which was, in effect, the successor state to OT.

 

[Agent327]

To clarify the original point - the RD standard is not markedly different from the general forum rules

So I noticed. I thought it would make a difference adding the RD prefix, only to find the thread run into the ground within 5 posts. which begs the question: what exactly is the point?

 

[Camikaze]

A prefix can't suddenly make everyone a better poster. The quality of threads is still ultimately up to the people who post within them. The prefix does, however, allow the fostering of an environment in which disruptive posting isn't acceptable. There's nothing to guarantee that an RD thread won't go downhill, but if it does so, we'll be taking action to deter such behaviour. Disruptive behaviour in a non-RD thread is not really our problem though; the OP has opted to forgo the 'protection' (so to speak) of moderation, and we'll only be stepping in for jerkish behaviour or disruptive behaviour that meets a higher threshold.

 

[timtofly]

Is there a way to ban posters from just RD threads?

 

[JollyRoger]

To me, the prefix signals a weakness - that the poster needs extra moderator protection.

 

[Cutlass]

To me, the prefix signals a weakness - that the poster needs extra moderator protection.

I've made a few RD threads. It's not about the protection. It's about wanting to actually discuss the issue, with minimal jackassery.

 

[peter grimes]

Is there a way to ban posters from just RD threads?

Not in the software, no. But the Moderation Staff can (and has in the past) decide to restrict a member's posting privileges regarding certain threads or topics.

 

[Takhisis]

As in, infracting them every time they post in a thread they're not allowed to?

 

[timtofly]

How authoritarian of you. No, I meant just banned from a thread.

 

[Camikaze]

As in, infracting them every time they post in a thread they're not allowed to?

That's probably what we'd do, and if it failed, we'd just ban the person outright.

 

[Takhisis]

How authoritarian of you. No, I meant just banned from a thread.

And that wouldn't be authoritarian?