What do you think would happen to OT if...

[Bill3000]

On second thought, this wouldn't be like CivJunction. That was organized chaos, and it resulted in the most hilarious and creative 24 hours in the life of this site.

So we should make OT an anarcho-syndicalist commune?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Enforcement? And you'd need rules and stuff. You'd eventually end up with the same system. Or something like it.

I've seen forums like that. Not good.

unmoderated places generally aren't fun they get filled with boring spam.


Nope, that stuff has way too much sock/meat puppetry and the like to work out.

It would be complete madness to be sure, whatwith the majority rule on everything.

On second thought, this wouldn't be like CivJunction. That was organized chaos, and it resulted in the most hilarious and creative 24 hours in the life of this site.

See, its things like that that make me think that this band of morons (aka OTers) would be able to cope well with absence of imposed authority.

 

[Nylan]

I don't think it's sustainable.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Some moderation is necessary to stop spam about ED pills or bestiality porn.


I'd rather off topic threads not be closed or have posts removed for getting off topic, and for no rules to be enforced without appearing in the official rules list (like the one requiring verifiable English translations for anything posted in another language). Since I'm getting close to breaking it now, it would also be a big improvement to get rid of the rule against discussing moderator actions. A subforum specifically for contesting moderator actions and allowing the community to vote on whether to reverse them could be quite nice.

 

[Souron]

So we should make OT an anarcho-syndicalist commune?

Yes, and we'd take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer would have to be ratified by a special biweekly poll. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal OT affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more involved decisions involving multiple forums.

 

[Perfection]

It would be complete madness to be sure, whatwith the majority rule on everything.

No it wouldn't. A bunch of morons acting like morons isn't madness, it's just stupidity.

See, its things like that that make me think that this band of morons (aka OTers) would be able to cope well with absence of imposed authority.

Oh for Pete's sake, it was the imposed authority that made CivJunction work. The fake union put the mods in a position where they couldn't much complain about us being goofy on this one day in this one instance and that's what made it so fun.

 

[Dachs]

I thought NES was basically dead anyway?

It's been "basically dead" since it started, by many definitions. Kinda like how Team Fortress 2 is a game that's been ruined by every single update that's been released for it.

 

[LucyDuke]

I didn't say I wanted this forum to become an anarchy-fest, but an un-moderated place might be fun if only for the incredible shoutfests than would ensue.

I do think it would be interesting to see what OT regulars would do absent moderation. I'd definitely let loose some flame.

 

[aelf]

Three words: Regulators will rise.

 

[Bill3000]

Three words: Regulators will rise.

The OT is self regulating! Let the OT decide!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'd rather off topic threads not be closed or have posts removed for getting off topic, and for no rules to be enforced without appearing in the official rules list (like the one requiring verifiable English translations for anything posted in another language). Since I'm getting close to breaking it now, it would also be a big improvement to get rid of the rule against discussing moderator actions. A subforum specifically for contesting moderator actions and allowing the community to vote on whether to reverse them could be quite nice.

Different forums have different ways of handling things like these. The smiley forum I mod recently went trilingual, with a couple of forums dedicated to French and German speaking posters. However, that would not have happened if we didn't have French and German-speaking moderators who are level-headed and trustworthy.

Public discussion of moderator actions (speaking generally) can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, if favoritism is happening it'll become apparent much sooner than otherwise might be the case. On the other hand, though, it makes every forum member feel entitled to jump in with an opinion and that can lead to some very bad flamefests and feuding. I've seen it, and we don't need it (the bad stuff that can happen).

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I still think it would be a good thing, if limited to its own subforum.

 

[Flying Pig]

Maybe in Site Feedback there's some place for it - perhaps a court of appeal?

 

[Nylan]

I don't see why PMs aren't good enough.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'd like capacity for people to review the case, see if everyone disagrees with it, and to get precedents made easily availiable. Just an idea

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't see why PMs aren't good enough.

Those get moderated too if the receiver concedes defeat.

 

[DMOC]

I would become the admin.

 

[civ_king]

Some moderation is necessary to stop spam about ED pills or bestiality porn.


I'd rather off topic threads not be closed or have posts removed for getting off topic, and for no rules to be enforced without appearing in the official rules list (like the one requiring verifiable English translations for anything posted in another language). Since I'm getting close to breaking it now, it would also be a big improvement to get rid of the rule against discussing moderator actions. A subforum specifically for contesting moderator actions and allowing the community to vote on whether to reverse them could be quite nice.

it would become /p/ or /t/ (troll)

 

[JohnRM]

It would not be good.