You're correct, and I apologize. That said, a more useful amount of information would be necessary for me to actually do something. As I mentioned earlier.
Okay. 's still true, though, believe it or not.
Most of the threads in the forums linked to by parinoid are locked, and can't be posted in anyway. The reopening of RDW suggests that those are likely to be recurring archetypes, and that the creation and re-creation of those fora would be meaningless, to me. I can ask CorpT about it, if you'd like.
As far as responding to others, but not to you, as I said, I looked at it, and couldn't figure out what you wanted. I thought that I had responded and I didn't. So, instead of reminding me, you decided to try to score cheap points.
So...we're done here, then?
Harkius
I wasn't trying to score cheap points... If that's the way you feel then there probably isn't anything i can do about it. All I was doing was stating the facts and as I said already, I was joking about the staff trying to trap lax users into getting infractions.
I didn't remind you because it appeared you were purposely ignoring me.
What I meant about the deprecated standard forums was explained by several other users each time I brought it up, which is why I'm perplexed at how you didn't understand.
[FONT=Verdana]I think [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]CXA26483 is talking about thesethreeforums that are home to CorpT's fantastic 'DO NOT POST HERE. FORUM CLOSED.' threads.
As far as I know, the RDW forum had one too, until it's recent resurgence with M12 (well after the 16th of June, which is when [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]CXA26483 originally posted that link)[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana].[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Indeed this is what I'm referring to. Obviously the link will not work now as the RDW forum has been reopened.
[font=Times New Roman] Cut the attitude, CXA26483. I'm not your enemy here.
This link, as friendly as you were to provide it, doesn't do me any good. What you've linked to is an entire subforum. The threads are still being posted on, there's no sign of problems, and your bare link doesn't really help me.
What you're asking is that I go spend hours to investigate what you claim is a problem on a section of the boards that aren't my responsibility. And you want me to do that when you already know what the problem is. Why?
In order to help you, you need to help me. For example, what, precisely is the problem with this subforum, again? Which posts particularly highlight this problem?[/font]
See the above. Forgive me for being irate, but you claim that I never provided you with a link, when it is quite obvious that I did. I attempted to explain the problem several times, and then you claim you forgot about my post, though not long after you continued to respond to other users' problems in your helpdesk, the very place where my post was. How you could've missed it is beyond my comprehension.
If you still don't see the problem with the forums, then I don't think I can explain any further.
Your patience is useful here. I tried to address it, looked at your link, and then was thinking, "What am I supposed to do with that?" Then, I kind of forgot. Feel free to remind me when things like that happen. I am willing to look at all of the issues that you brought up, but you need to remember three things.
1) I am not a person who can unilaterally effect change.
2) I am not without endless time or understanding. I have other responsibilities here.
3) I am not without the ability to forget.
If you want things fixed, you need to both be patient and to help me.
Again, you can try to score cheap points, or you can try to get things to change for the better. Let me know which one you want, because you can't have both. If it's the former, I will simply ignore you, and address the problems that other users have. If it's the latter, you need to have patience and to work with me.
Cheap points, or do you want to fix things?
Harkius[/font]
I'm pretty sure you should know my answer already. In any case, my jab at the staff here laying traps for unaware users was more in jest, showing you that the deprecated forums (which parinoid linked to) serve no purpose, and that was the only one I could come up with since they could be archived, and still be available for users to view.
Captchas don't help. The majority of spam, contrary to popular belief, is not bots but humans.
Intriguing.
I actually did notice quite a few more spam accounts, but thought there was a problem with our registration system (I recall that it had a captcha, but that was a long time ago so I could be remembering wrong).
Like you say though, there's really not a whole lot more than can be done about them.
You did. And I asked you for a link as to what you were talking about, because I couldn't figure it out. You never provided one, so I assumed that you stopped caring. I'll repeat that request here:
Provide me a link, so that I can see what you are talking about.
...even quoted, showing you that I did this. I discontinued conversation because this being one of my qualms about the inaction of staff members here, was never taken care or responded to despite bringing it to attention several times. Not to mention (though I will) none of my other points after my "Wall of Text" post were responded to by you afterwards. I suppose all of this only goes to further my point.
Why should they be deleted? Maybe they're there for past reference? I know that I've looked at builds from the past to explore synergies in new sets. Others do as well. They could be useful. Admittedly, if people aren't supposed to post in them, they should be locked, but that seems a minor point.
Perhaps you could explain your position?
Harkius
If that's the case, there are always the archives. Everyone has access to them. As it stands, the "closed" forums are basically a trap for posters who don't pay attention. If subterfuge is one of the goals of the staff here, I suppose you certainly are succeeding by not deleting or archiving them.
As for the 'two people paying their taxes', while I believe those posts are actionable, such action is entirely up to the moderators of those individual forums. It's their ball.
And there is the flaw with the discretion some mods have been given.
When I started posting here I got a lot of dumb infractions. After my first suspension I decided to clean up my record. Fast forward almost a year and I have have no infractions for that period of time. Then one day, I log on to find that I got three in a row, in water cooler chat/real life advice. When I contact the mod, he says that the infraction stands. So I go up a level. The next mod tells me that in borderline cases, since I have a history of infractions the moderation will stand (in regards to this post: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6886781#post6886781).
I was kind of baffled. I hadn't had a moderation in a year, but I still get this label of a troublesome user? And now because of that I have fresh moderations on my record. Which apparently even a year later will be fresh enough to take into account when looking at my posts. Am I just screwed forever?
Which I guess I can agree with, although the thread was in water cooler talk at the time.
So then I start looking for other posts like mine, that could be considered spammy based on what mood the moderator is in at the time. I came up with this:
All of these were made either in debate threads or real-life advice. Why is it that some users can accuse someone of "making **** up" but when I say "talking out of your ass" it is an infraction? Why is talking about shrimp on treadmills in a debate thread ok, but posting an unhelpful (but true) little quip in an advice thread is not? I reported all of these posts and no infractions were given. However, lets say that I had been infracted for any one of the above posts. To any mod reading this thread; can't you just predict your response to me going to you and appealing the other mods decision? Would you really overturn it? No way. It's not that I'm saying none of my moderations were deserved, it's just that they seem to be given out on whims. I can apply any of my responses from mods from my cases as to why the moderation was upheld to the above list, and it would seem like a perfectly reasonable argument. Hell, it's easy to take many questionable posts and make a reasonable argument for why they are spam, yet most would never be infracted. In many cases it's not a double standard (although I think the ease with which I acquired three moderations in one day is no coincidence. After one, it is much easier to give out another in the same thread), it's just inconsistent.
And before this is closed and I am told to contact a moderator, I have tried. I contacted two moderators about this issue lately and I have received no response. So this is the last place to inquire about this issue. Also, I believe that this is a larger issue than just complaining about what I think should not have been a moderation. Plus, any response I have received in the past has been... unsatisfying (one sentence repeating what the offense was and that the moderation stands before you are left on your one month suspension can be kind of frustrating). Like I said, it is easy to lay out what seems to be a reasonable argument for why a moderation was made, but a reasonable person would probably not bother in the first place. I don't expect anything to come of this thread, but I feel the need to voice my frustration.
Thank you
I concur that a few of the posts you linked to (besides your own) required moderator attention of some kind (particularly something about shrimp on treadmills?). I also agree that there is still something of a consistency problem in moderator action on these boards. Sure, discretion is useful, but precedents have likely been set by previous action which can be used as guard-rails to prevent over-doing things (ie, the posts LogicX mentioned were not given any moderator action, thus, he probably does not deserve the treatment he received).
I'm beginning to give up hope that some of these repeatedly mentioned problems (which new threads have cropped up for, and reminders have been given) will receive attention.
And a week later, no response to this thread from anyone in charge, other than "Mods can't delete forums, only admins can."
For that I ask, if the deprecated standard forums (which I also brought up weeks ago in Harkius' mod thread [IIRC]) are not removed, and are not able to be posted in, how long is it going to take for an admin to delete them? Why haven't they been deleted yet? If the admins are overburdened, are you going to be promoting more people to admin status?
What's your point? Don't you think that it might be nice to know if people think you're doing a good/poor job? Might make people think twice about posting "yet another angel deck" or what-have-you?
I don't particularly care what other people think; I'm here because I want to be, not because you want me to be. Not to mention for the most part if a post is made, and people don't like it, making them explain why a post is bad is much better than simply allowing a button to be clicked saying "this post is bad" or "this post is good". At least as it stands now, it's a requirement that people add content to their posts, or else it is considered spam, so simply replying with the corresponding upvote or downvote opinion ("this post is good"/"this post is bad") would be warnable/infractable. This is partially why polls like this are broken. See, I could've simply clicked "no" and left it at that. However, when I state my reasons as to why this system should not be implemented, other users can see the logic behind why I chose that response, and add in their comments/rebuttals against my argument. In that regard, I am able to improve my posting skills by re-evaluating certain parts of the post those users are responding to. Without that sort of input, all I can assume is "Well, my post was bad, but what about it was bad?"
I don't like using a rep system, but what about putting in a "like" system kind of like Facebook? That way you can only vote up posts and not vote down posts out of spite.
This works essentially the same way; people would simply not upvote posts they didn't like, thus other people would only acknowledge the "liked" posts, and ignore the others. As far as grudging other users goes, this system is only marginally better, because people would simply not upvote posts from users they didn't like.
The problem I have with the whole rep/like system is this: People already know who to pay attention to or who not to pay attention to for certain things. Adding a system to make that apparent only serves to boost or cut down people's egos.
I'm going to talk to some staff members about possibly adding Market Street to their list of duties in the next few days. We clearly need more moderators in Market Street.
All good things to hear, however, if current mods for that section are under orders to not handle BTR's, who exactly will be? How long is a "few" days? I myself have been reluctant, after doing some research into the section, to begin online trading due to the lack of backing by the powers that be here.
I hope this gets resolved soon (deja vu circa Solon Jhee)
That is what I am seeing. If mods are constantly swapped in and out of Market Street, the required experience to be a proficient mod for that section will never be accumulated.
The mazahaka post was intended to show that his "I'm a judge, trust me" statement was inappropriate; I was not expecting him to actually offer me the card. Even with that posted, I'd expect my refs to speak for themselves at this point.
Yes, refs do speak for themselves. However, if an action from another users is inappropriate, making that user aware in a more straightforward manner would likely be more appropriate for a mod, rather than the course you took so that this sort of confusion does not occur.
GI Joe and Yomako have directions to not moderate the BTR; precedent should not be set by temporary moderators. The current state of the BTR is entirely my fault, and I'm working on it now. In fact, I noticed this thread because I came into CI to post bans.
All I was aware of is that they are supposedly temporary moderators, who are now approximately one week over their estimated temp-modship, and have not performed their duties as been made aware to the forum at large. In the future, I take we can now refer to this case as a denotation that "temp-mods" should not be held accountable for their respected forums?
atlseal's moderation came after much deliberation in the mod lounge. There was nothing untoward or unexpected about it; he was appointed because he'd applied for the position and a number of staff members felt he was the best person for the job.
I was talking more about the other previously appointed Market Street mods.
thegrinningdemon's ban was for making threats of physical violence in the BTR thread, not for the trade itself. The lack of ban list post was an oversight.
As much as you think so, given the choice between bells and whistles and functional conversations, I'd choose the latter, since this isn't a forum for software or software development.
No, it is a magic forum that according to a few users here, could use some upgrades.
What you're not recognizing here, though, is that it doesn't just take money. It takes time. Perhaps Hannes is not willing to invest the time. Perhaps he doesn't have the time or inclination to do it himself, perhaps he doesn't have the money to pay someone else. Or, perhaps he feels, as I do, that it really isn't an important thing to upgrade.
I was replying strictly to what Hannes stated about the monetary situation, not the time situation. Yes, the upgrades would take time. Nowhere did I ask a staff member to quit their IRL jobs to work here.
As much as that is true, it's probably also true that there are more and less appropriate ways to have said discussions. And, "Hey?! WTF??? Why is the site not updated yet???" probably doesn't qualify as the former.
Harkius[/QUOTE]I absolutely agree. While I myself am not the most tactful at times, I do strive to be for the most part, while still getting my point across. That being said, I don't think it would hurt to hear an update from the big man himself.
sentimentgx4 was blunt, but certainly well within forum decorum. Many people are blunt in CI, largely because they come to CI because other outlets of communication have failed them. As such, I'd expect folks to be 'straight to the point' when talking about issues here.
I once believed that CI was only a podium for ranters and a thorn in the side of MTGS, until I realized that thorns grow on roses. CI is a positive force for change on MTGS, because it draws ignored or stifled issues into the open for everyone to discuss.
While some threads complaining about infractions are largely baseless and spam, the majority of CI threads are productive and useful.
It's feels good to feel appreciated. (I hope I'm not taking away too much from your post there Ambassador... :S)
I stand corrected. I merely assumed that some level of gratitude and appreciation, along with the griping, would be appreciated. I guess that I will just go ahead and leave comments here to you, Ambassador Laquatus.
Harkius
I'm sure whether the people of this site say it or not Harkius, they are by-and-large appreciative of the efforts of the staff members here, and even of input from fellow members. If that was not the case, they most assuredly would've moved on to a different (and dare-I-say worse) community. If a problem appears to a user, then there should be no problem voicing it though. With continued back-and-forth between that user and the staff, hopefully that problem will be rectified, and if not, hopefully reasons will be stated as to why it exists (or is perceived to exist from that user's viewpoint).
Yeah, so long as he doesn't let some random person do it, just because they want their phone to work better with the site.
You don't have rights here, sentimentgx4. This site, and your ability to participate here, is a privilege that you should appreciate, rather than complain about.
Harkius
I wouldn't really call this behavior befitting a respectable moderator. While your points are admittedly valid, the staff here should be striving to make improvements to the site, whether it be through new software, or not. I have always been on sentimentGX4's side (that is, acquiring new forum software), but that is not coming to fruition apparently. I also noticed Hanne's post about paying him to work full time. I have said on multiple occasions I would be willing to donate funds when I have them to help the site out, with no hidden agenda. There is going to be a time, make no mistake about it, that the forum software WILL have to be upgraded. It might not be tomorrow, or even soon, but it will happen, and it will likely be harder than it is right now due to the disparity between what is available then, and what is available now.
I didn't remind you because it appeared you were purposely ignoring me.
What I meant about the deprecated standard forums was explained by several other users each time I brought it up, which is why I'm perplexed at how you didn't understand.
So you tell me if we're done.
If you still don't see the problem with the forums, then I don't think I can explain any further. I'm pretty sure you should know my answer already. In any case, my jab at the staff here laying traps for unaware users was more in jest, showing you that the deprecated forums (which parinoid linked to) serve no purpose, and that was the only one I could come up with since they could be archived, and still be available for users to view.
I actually did notice quite a few more spam accounts, but thought there was a problem with our registration system (I recall that it had a captcha, but that was a long time ago so I could be remembering wrong).
Like you say though, there's really not a whole lot more than can be done about them.
...for the third time now...
...even quoted, showing you that I did this. I discontinued conversation because this being one of my qualms about the inaction of staff members here, was never taken care or responded to despite bringing it to attention several times. Not to mention (though I will) none of my other points after my "Wall of Text" post were responded to by you afterwards. I suppose all of this only goes to further my point.
If that's the case, there are always the archives. Everyone has access to them. As it stands, the "closed" forums are basically a trap for posters who don't pay attention. If subterfuge is one of the goals of the staff here, I suppose you certainly are succeeding by not deleting or archiving them.
I'm beginning to give up hope that some of these repeatedly mentioned problems (which new threads have cropped up for, and reminders have been given) will receive attention.
For that I ask, if the deprecated standard forums (which I also brought up weeks ago in Harkius' mod thread [IIRC]) are not removed, and are not able to be posted in, how long is it going to take for an admin to delete them? Why haven't they been deleted yet? If the admins are overburdened, are you going to be promoting more people to admin status?
EDIT: Nath'd... sort of.
The problem I have with the whole rep/like system is this: People already know who to pay attention to or who not to pay attention to for certain things. Adding a system to make that apparent only serves to boost or cut down people's egos.
All I was aware of is that they are supposedly temporary moderators, who are now approximately one week over their estimated temp-modship, and have not performed their duties as been made aware to the forum at large. In the future, I take we can now refer to this case as a denotation that "temp-mods" should not be held accountable for their respected forums?
I was talking more about the other previously appointed Market Street mods.
I appreciate the clarification.
I was replying strictly to what Hannes stated about the monetary situation, not the time situation. Yes, the upgrades would take time. Nowhere did I ask a staff member to quit their IRL jobs to work here.
As much as that is true, it's probably also true that there are more and less appropriate ways to have said discussions. And, "Hey?! WTF??? Why is the site not updated yet???" probably doesn't qualify as the former.
Harkius[/QUOTE]I absolutely agree. While I myself am not the most tactful at times, I do strive to be for the most part, while still getting my point across. That being said, I don't think it would hurt to hear an update from the big man himself.
Well said, though, tactful or not, I feel sentimentgx4's points are still valid. EDIT: Sarnath'd It's feels good to feel appreciated. (I hope I'm not taking away too much from your post there Ambassador... :S)
I'm sure whether the people of this site say it or not Harkius, they are by-and-large appreciative of the efforts of the staff members here, and even of input from fellow members. If that was not the case, they most assuredly would've moved on to a different (and dare-I-say worse) community. If a problem appears to a user, then there should be no problem voicing it though. With continued back-and-forth between that user and the staff, hopefully that problem will be rectified, and if not, hopefully reasons will be stated as to why it exists (or is perceived to exist from that user's viewpoint).