Yes, the rules are flawed. I'm sure the more corner cases you whip up, the more flaws you'll find. We're aware of that when we streamlined the rules.
In order to cover all the basics, plus the dozens of rare corner cases, plus make the rules clear, plus leave outs for the staff to make situational judgment calls as situations call for them - we'd have to go back to the way we used to try to word the rules. Which was akin to lawyerese. The rules didn't work well that way, especially as more and more new users flocked to the site.
I speak for myself here when I say I'm not in favor of changing the rules to address every single corner case if it means layering on more complexity than our membership is overall capable of handling. Especially when said corner cases have alternative ways of being solved and thus don't necessitate an alteration to the rules.
Except as I've shown repeatedly, it doesn't lock you out of a thread. No, you can't doublepost, but that doesn't mean you aren't left with options should you want to add something.
I can't think of another cornercase like this that would clog up the rules, and that is a horrible slippery-slope argument anyway. The rules are, admittedly, flawed. You have chosen to enforce flawed rules rather than makes the rules more complicated. I mean, zero rules would be much simpler than the current rules? Why not go with that? The slippery-slope fallacy can be used both ways, you see. By neccessity, a rules structure is more complex than no structure, and adding additional rules is going to increase the structure. But you've decided not to fix a flaw on the grounds that it will increase complexity, not because the new level of complexity will be too much, but because at some undefined point in the future the rules will be too complex if a bunch more cornercases come up. This is a fairly flawed way to go about developing a rules system. Way flawed.
1. User breaks a rule in a post.
2. Moderator warns/infracts, then edits mod text into the post.
3. User should be allowed to break the 'no double posting rule' now.
... How does breaking one rule make breaking the second okay?
You are willfully misinterpreting the situation/argument. Obviously we aren't arguing that a user should be allowed to break the rules. We are arguing that the rules are flawed because at step (3) the user is now no longer able to contribute to the thread. We are arguing that the rules of MtGSalvation should be changed because they are flawed as they stand. You are strawmanning.
It is trivial to add an exception whereby users are allowed to double-post in situations where editting is not allowed. This exception should be added because a moderator editting your post shouldn't lock you out of a thread.
That is incredibly pedantic, not to mention idiotic. A given user has something to say in the context of the mod edit it. He has zero mechanism for it to be publicly stated, without waiting for someone else to randomly post? Does that make any sense at all?
You are correct, the rules here are flawed. While unlikely, it is perfectly possible for a situation to exist whereby a poster could contribute to the thread, but can't because of a rules reverse-loophole. Yes, most of the time someone else will post soon. However, you'll never get nai to admit this, because as far as I can tell he never says anything bad about mtgsalvation moderation policies - defends every single detail of them rather than admitting that there are some flaws. I guess this is an admirable trait in a moderator, but it makes it pretty annoying trying to get any positive changes instituted on this website.
Manasjap mania predates the forum awards - manasjap joined the gutter shortly after joining mtgs, and his actions in the gutter greatly impressed us. You can't see the gutter, and as such you can't actually see it, but it is the truth.
Then, along came the forum awards. The gutter has a long history of active participation in the awards, and there was one candidate we felt was the obvious choice for rookie of the year, so we pushed him. He won.
Since then, manasjap mania has not abated. He continues to participate in the gutter, and we continue to enjoy it. Like, of all the accusations that have been and can be leveled at the gutter, in this instance we've done nothing dishonest at all.
And, as an aside, your membership into the gutter is decided not by anyone posting in this thread, but by annorax, mikeyg and urzased's - mostly mikeyg, really. Nobody here can actually know how they make up their respective minds, but I've no doubt that there are certain steps that could be taken to ensure that a membership application succeeds. I'm not going to tell you what those steps are, because displaying the ability to figure it out for yourself is one of the steps.
The logic about 'the more you want it, the less you deserve it' is disengenous - However, there is a strong correllation between people who make a lot of noise about getting into the gutter and people who are disruptive once in the gutter - and need to be removed.
I mean, personally, I just let everyone in unless they were underage or a previously gutterbanned member, and then I banned them if the need arose.
I did. If I understand the postcount index rebuild process correctly, posts were re-counted based on whether subforums are set up for posts to count now, not when the posts are made. For most people this shouldn't cause much of a change, but five years worth of Gutter posts now counting threw mine off a bit.
Son, you don't even know what five years of gutter posting is worth
I mean, take a look at me and kijin - 2000 posts? Bah!
hrm... does this mean it is now possible for me to search my own posts and actually have gutter posts come up as a result?
and if not, is it at all possible to do this? basically I'm interested to see what my first gutter post was, but I definately couldn't search for it last time I tried. or is it just that the search function only goes back 500 posts?
Taylor's 'two-candidates' suggestion was just an attempt to reduce the number of awards won by gutter-backed candidates.
Taylor's 'mod-chosen' suggestion was just an attempt to reduce the number of awards won by gutter-backed candidates.
Dalkon mentioned that the forum awards have 'become' a popularity contest; in actual fact they have always been a popularity contest, even back on mtgnews when users like DragonofthePants were contending for funniest member. It is disengenuous to suggest that something about this year's awards has been different or worse than previous years. Speaking as someone who has been involved in multiple forum awards, this year has had much less drama than past years.
For me, the two biggest flaws with this year's award were as follows:
1/ The moderator-nominated mafia newcomer award, in which the moderators clearly did not nominate suitable candidates (this cannot be argued; they nominated a past winner of the award, which is clearly a gross error). I believe in future this award needs to have public nominations since the users don't make this kind of error. (And for anyone whoh thinks that this might allow the gutter to get another award, you are pretty wrong: prominent gutter member kpaca won mafia newcomer this year. So people who have thier nose out of joint just because of the gutter shouldn't automatically dislike this suggestion).
2/ The nomination thread for best sig maker was held in the sig sub-forum, not the main nomination thread, which meant that since I made my sigs and avatars outside of that subforum, I didn't get a chance to win the award. And since I made the sig that won sig of the year, it seems a bit silly that I never get a chance to win any kind of a award.
Other than that, I think the forum awards don't need to be changed - except possibly with stricter/firmer moderation of the discussion threads, since that might help nip drama in the bud before it starts.
Well, I think my opinion was expressed in the other thread, but I guess I'll clarify/restate: I'd like it if the userbase had some say in the appointment of staff, and in policy decisions. I'm not sure what the best way is to do this on a subforum by subforum basis, though: in some subforums, there is a small number of users who are probably more clued in that the moderators. In other subforums, like the rumour mill, the average user is so new to the site, and the posting volume so high, that it would seem almost impossible for new users to identify other users qualities.
It is well within the realms of possibility that the current system of choosing mods, while flawed, is the best available. I don't think I'm advocating an open democracy or anything like that.
Sometimes I just get worried that one of my favourite little corners of the internet will get pulled out from under me before I even know what has happened, without me being able to have any say in it.
God Child: You have a point. I can see subforums, like Rumor Mill, where the users that know who bring in the best rumors and who confirms the most, etc., would be good for popular vote. But I don't think the users have a better idea of who can do the job than the Mods. Reason being, there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that needs to be done too. It's not just infracting and moving threads. We also decide on site policy, decide when to change rules, working on keeping spambots to a dull roar, etc.
Well, I not really sure how much of this 'behind the scenes' stuff should actually be going on behind the scenes, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, you are saying, only a moderator is capable of recognising what makes a good moderator. I don't think that is true, even if there are things mods do that I don't see them doing. I think I can accurately judge what is required despite never having seen behind the scenes, and I'd imagine most other mtgs users could to.
I mean, I know that relevant users would never have picked sapphiretri. Perhaps it is most relevant in my subforum, where I know there is a disconnect between the moderators and the users.
It's also a question of who fits well within the team. Every so often there may be a member who would be an absolutely fantastic moderator... Except for the fact that he tends to get heated with people that argue with them and has a tendency to flame. Or a moderator who has problems with other moderators that they can't let lie. He may do his job amazingly, but he's going to cause strife among the moderators and between moderators and members. That's not a good thing.
That's a big reason why Moderators choose Moderators. Because we want there to be a good fit between us. We want to be able to do our jobs well because we all work well together. We can disagree, but we don't want to be at each other's throats.
So we don't get the best moderators, we get the moderators that fit best with the current moderators. That seems silly, and it seems like an excuse to let personal feeling get in the way of choosing a moderator. I mean, I know their are current moderators who don't like other members of the staff, so I don't think this is a real problem.
I'd love to say we could just do Popular Vote and let the Moderators have veto power. But then there'd be a lot of drama over why the mods veto'd someone, and we don't want -that- either.
In the end, I guess I just feel really strongly that the users of salvation should have some say in the people who moderate them. As of right now, the body politic has zero input in staff and policy choices, which just seems wrong.
We vote for our President almost the same way, and it's my opinion that we RARELY elect the most qualified person for the job.
Congratulations to all new Mods, and thanks you to current Mods for the good job they do.
For the record, I don't vote for your president, not in any fashion. And if you keep on electing someone who isn't qualified, then why is democracy the system of choice across countries, states, etc?
On top of that, I'd expect that mtgsalvation users are able to do a better job of picking based on qualifications than the american population.
Lastly, I'm talking about popular vote for and within specific subforums, where the users have a very good idea of what will make someone a good mod and what won't - possibly a better idea than the staff, if sapphiretri is taken as an example.
It's because your stupid banners were asked to be removed, and you didn't. Hurpdedurpdurp.
This is actually not the case. One user was asked to remove his banner, so he replaced it with a different banner that obscured the avatar. Whether or not this counts as not removing the banner is debatable - but not relevant.
Then kraj, instead of telling other users to remove their banners, just went into their control panels and editted their signatures himself, without telling them and without permission.
Unsuprisingly, since kraj never informed the users of the changes or why, many of them thought it was just a technical error and reuploaded their signatures.
So, yeah, only one user was told to change their sig. The others were just manhandled without warning, and manhandled ineffectively to boot.
Next time you don't know what has happened, you probably shouldn't post in threads like this. The reason for the lost banners were explained in the gutter by kraj, so I understand why you are ignorant of the particular facts of this case, but in future you shouldn't jump to conclusions
Popular vote has nothing to do with actual qualifications, though.
Neither does private vote - the votes of the admins/global mods/whoever is choosing these new mods also have nothing to do with actual qualifications. The people making the choices now are presumably making the choice based on qualifications, but that isn't the same as the private votes themselves being actual qualifications. Popular vote works the same way, and in the past it has been quite successful
It might be. Sometimes a thread is replaced with a newer thread. Other times the topic simply isn't relevant anymore. But this is a rule that needs to be followed just like any other.
Just because a rule needs to be followed doesn't mean we can't start discussion about the validity of the rule.
I can't think of another cornercase like this that would clog up the rules, and that is a horrible slippery-slope argument anyway. The rules are, admittedly, flawed. You have chosen to enforce flawed rules rather than makes the rules more complicated. I mean, zero rules would be much simpler than the current rules? Why not go with that? The slippery-slope fallacy can be used both ways, you see. By neccessity, a rules structure is more complex than no structure, and adding additional rules is going to increase the structure. But you've decided not to fix a flaw on the grounds that it will increase complexity, not because the new level of complexity will be too much, but because at some undefined point in the future the rules will be too complex if a bunch more cornercases come up. This is a fairly flawed way to go about developing a rules system. Way flawed.
You are willfully misinterpreting the situation/argument. Obviously we aren't arguing that a user should be allowed to break the rules. We are arguing that the rules are flawed because at step (3) the user is now no longer able to contribute to the thread. We are arguing that the rules of MtGSalvation should be changed because they are flawed as they stand. You are strawmanning.
It is trivial to add an exception whereby users are allowed to double-post in situations where editting is not allowed. This exception should be added because a moderator editting your post shouldn't lock you out of a thread.
You are correct, the rules here are flawed. While unlikely, it is perfectly possible for a situation to exist whereby a poster could contribute to the thread, but can't because of a rules reverse-loophole. Yes, most of the time someone else will post soon. However, you'll never get nai to admit this, because as far as I can tell he never says anything bad about mtgsalvation moderation policies - defends every single detail of them rather than admitting that there are some flaws. I guess this is an admirable trait in a moderator, but it makes it pretty annoying trying to get any positive changes instituted on this website.
Then, along came the forum awards. The gutter has a long history of active participation in the awards, and there was one candidate we felt was the obvious choice for rookie of the year, so we pushed him. He won.
Since then, manasjap mania has not abated. He continues to participate in the gutter, and we continue to enjoy it. Like, of all the accusations that have been and can be leveled at the gutter, in this instance we've done nothing dishonest at all.
And, as an aside, your membership into the gutter is decided not by anyone posting in this thread, but by annorax, mikeyg and urzased's - mostly mikeyg, really. Nobody here can actually know how they make up their respective minds, but I've no doubt that there are certain steps that could be taken to ensure that a membership application succeeds. I'm not going to tell you what those steps are, because displaying the ability to figure it out for yourself is one of the steps.
The logic about 'the more you want it, the less you deserve it' is disengenous - However, there is a strong correllation between people who make a lot of noise about getting into the gutter and people who are disruptive once in the gutter - and need to be removed.
I mean, personally, I just let everyone in unless they were underage or a previously gutterbanned member, and then I banned them if the need arose.
Son, you don't even know what five years of gutter posting is worth
I mean, take a look at me and kijin - 2000 posts? Bah!
hrm... does this mean it is now possible for me to search my own posts and actually have gutter posts come up as a result?
and if not, is it at all possible to do this? basically I'm interested to see what my first gutter post was, but I definately couldn't search for it last time I tried. or is it just that the search function only goes back 500 posts?
Taylor's 'mod-chosen' suggestion was just an attempt to reduce the number of awards won by gutter-backed candidates.
Dalkon mentioned that the forum awards have 'become' a popularity contest; in actual fact they have always been a popularity contest, even back on mtgnews when users like DragonofthePants were contending for funniest member. It is disengenuous to suggest that something about this year's awards has been different or worse than previous years. Speaking as someone who has been involved in multiple forum awards, this year has had much less drama than past years.
For me, the two biggest flaws with this year's award were as follows:
1/ The moderator-nominated mafia newcomer award, in which the moderators clearly did not nominate suitable candidates (this cannot be argued; they nominated a past winner of the award, which is clearly a gross error). I believe in future this award needs to have public nominations since the users don't make this kind of error. (And for anyone whoh thinks that this might allow the gutter to get another award, you are pretty wrong: prominent gutter member kpaca won mafia newcomer this year. So people who have thier nose out of joint just because of the gutter shouldn't automatically dislike this suggestion).
2/ The nomination thread for best sig maker was held in the sig sub-forum, not the main nomination thread, which meant that since I made my sigs and avatars outside of that subforum, I didn't get a chance to win the award. And since I made the sig that won sig of the year, it seems a bit silly that I never get a chance to win any kind of a award.
Other than that, I think the forum awards don't need to be changed - except possibly with stricter/firmer moderation of the discussion threads, since that might help nip drama in the bud before it starts.
It is well within the realms of possibility that the current system of choosing mods, while flawed, is the best available. I don't think I'm advocating an open democracy or anything like that.
Sometimes I just get worried that one of my favourite little corners of the internet will get pulled out from under me before I even know what has happened, without me being able to have any say in it.
Well, I not really sure how much of this 'behind the scenes' stuff should actually be going on behind the scenes, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, you are saying, only a moderator is capable of recognising what makes a good moderator. I don't think that is true, even if there are things mods do that I don't see them doing. I think I can accurately judge what is required despite never having seen behind the scenes, and I'd imagine most other mtgs users could to.
I mean, I know that relevant users would never have picked sapphiretri. Perhaps it is most relevant in my subforum, where I know there is a disconnect between the moderators and the users.
So we don't get the best moderators, we get the moderators that fit best with the current moderators. That seems silly, and it seems like an excuse to let personal feeling get in the way of choosing a moderator. I mean, I know their are current moderators who don't like other members of the staff, so I don't think this is a real problem.
In the end, I guess I just feel really strongly that the users of salvation should have some say in the people who moderate them. As of right now, the body politic has zero input in staff and policy choices, which just seems wrong.
For the record, I don't vote for your president, not in any fashion. And if you keep on electing someone who isn't qualified, then why is democracy the system of choice across countries, states, etc?
On top of that, I'd expect that mtgsalvation users are able to do a better job of picking based on qualifications than the american population.
Lastly, I'm talking about popular vote for and within specific subforums, where the users have a very good idea of what will make someone a good mod and what won't - possibly a better idea than the staff, if sapphiretri is taken as an example.
This is actually not the case. One user was asked to remove his banner, so he replaced it with a different banner that obscured the avatar. Whether or not this counts as not removing the banner is debatable - but not relevant.
Then kraj, instead of telling other users to remove their banners, just went into their control panels and editted their signatures himself, without telling them and without permission.
Unsuprisingly, since kraj never informed the users of the changes or why, many of them thought it was just a technical error and reuploaded their signatures.
So, yeah, only one user was told to change their sig. The others were just manhandled without warning, and manhandled ineffectively to boot.
Next time you don't know what has happened, you probably shouldn't post in threads like this. The reason for the lost banners were explained in the gutter by kraj, so I understand why you are ignorant of the particular facts of this case, but in future you shouldn't jump to conclusions
Neither does private vote - the votes of the admins/global mods/whoever is choosing these new mods also have nothing to do with actual qualifications. The people making the choices now are presumably making the choice based on qualifications, but that isn't the same as the private votes themselves being actual qualifications. Popular vote works the same way, and in the past it has been quite successful
Just because a rule needs to be followed doesn't mean we can't start discussion about the validity of the rule.